I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge with
this method.

So I thought I'd look at two levels simultaneously. I grabbed the head off
an old combination square, that I use for sundry low quality purposes. Put
it on the table, and it showed a huge amount of tilt. Put it on the wing,
and it showed the same huge amount of tilt.

Then I got the head off my good combo square, and it showed the same as the
first one. Grossly out of whack level wise.

I just don't get it. Why would one show perfect and the other show that the
left side of the saw is almost 1/4" higher than the right? That's a huge
difference. My first thought is length. The orange 3-in-1 level is about
3/4" longer than the head of a combo square. My second thought is the size
of the bubble. The bubbles in the combo squares are a bit larger, and the
vials are a bit larger too.

Just for kicks, I also tried with a bullseye level. It shows level all the
way around too.

Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels.

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

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge with
this method.

So I thought I'd look at two levels simultaneously. I grabbed the head off
an old combination square, that I use for sundry low quality purposes. Put
it on the table, and it showed a huge amount of tilt. Put it on the wing,
and it showed the same huge amount of tilt.

Then I got the head off my good combo square, and it showed the same as the
first one. Grossly out of whack level wise.

I just don't get it. Why would one show perfect and the other show that the
left side of the saw is almost 1/4" higher than the right? That's a huge
difference. My first thought is length. The orange 3-in-1 level is about
3/4" longer than the head of a combo square. My second thought is the size
of the bubble. The bubbles in the combo squares are a bit larger, and the
vials are a bit larger too.

Just for kicks, I also tried with a bullseye level. It shows level all the
way around too.

Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels.


sounds to me like you have some bad levels.

first, check the levels against themselves. put a couple of drywall
screws in something immoveable, like the floor. twiddle the heads in
and out while checking with a level until you get it level, then turn
the level end for end and check it again.

some levels can be adjusted, some can't. the ones that can't, and are
out, throw away. if they are also something else useful, like a square
head that *is* square, mark the level as bad.

Once verified the levels for accuracy, then cover the top of the TS with
some MDF (cover the whole top) and make sure the TS is level in all
directions. Then take off the MDF and check individual areas, you will find
out where you have just a section out. Adjust and your done.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but
significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting
to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all
the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge
with
this method.

So I thought I'd look at two levels simultaneously. I grabbed the head
off
an old combination square, that I use for sundry low quality purposes.
Put
it on the table, and it showed a huge amount of tilt. Put it on the
wing,
and it showed the same huge amount of tilt.

Then I got the head off my good combo square, and it showed the same as
the
first one. Grossly out of whack level wise.

I just don't get it. Why would one show perfect and the other show that
the
left side of the saw is almost 1/4" higher than the right? That's a huge
difference. My first thought is length. The orange 3-in-1 level is
about
3/4" longer than the head of a combo square. My second thought is the
size
of the bubble. The bubbles in the combo squares are a bit larger, and
the
vials are a bit larger too.

Just for kicks, I also tried with a bullseye level. It shows level all
the
way around too.

Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no
hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels.


sounds to me like you have some bad levels.

first, check the levels against themselves. put a couple of drywall
screws in something immoveable, like the floor. twiddle the heads in
and out while checking with a level until you get it level, then turn
the level end for end and check it again.

some levels can be adjusted, some can't. the ones that can't, and are
out, throw away. if they are also something else useful, like a square
head that *is* square, mark the level as bad.

Silvan asks:


I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge with
this method.

So I thought I'd look at two levels simultaneously. I grabbed the head off
an old combination square, that I use for sundry low quality purposes. Put
it on the table, and it showed a huge amount of tilt. Put it on the wing,
and it showed the same huge amount of tilt.

Then I got the head off my good combo square, and it showed the same as the
first one. Grossly out of whack level wise.

I just don't get it. Why would one show perfect and the other show that the
left side of the saw is almost 1/4" higher than the right? That's a huge
difference. My first thought is length. The orange 3-in-1 level is about
3/4" longer than the head of a combo square. My second thought is the size
of the bubble. The bubbles in the combo squares are a bit larger, and the
vials are a bit larger too.

Just for kicks, I also tried with a bullseye level. It shows level all the
way around too.

Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels

Simple answer: the levels in the combo squares aren't worth the dynamite to
blow them over a squatting flea. They're crappy when new and the first knock
they get sends them totally over limits.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:
snip
Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels.

I agree with Bridger's suggestions. I am going through the same thing.
I made the mistake of buying a new No98 Starrett Machinist's level
(cheap off e*ay) and now I can't find a level that is close to doing
its job - except the Starrett (thanks to UA100). One level has gone to
landfill and my other (reasonably new) Lufkin level I'll probably be
taking back.

The advice already given is good. The levels in the heads of
combination squares aren't usually that good. Another thing to consider
is the length of the reference surface on the level. I don't know what
sort of orange level you are talking about but if it has three vials,
it must be longer than the face on the combination square head.

The orange level may report a level surface but keep in mind that could
be just between the two ends of the device.

If you want to confirm what your first level told you, you use another
level of the same length.

If you want to adjust the wing with the table, you should be using a
different measuring device. A level, even an accurate one doesn't have
a very high resolution.

If you are concerned about the wing sagging or riding high out at the
ends you should use a long, accurate straight edge and reference off
the table. Better would be two used as winding sticks to see if one
corner is higher.

If your concern is the wing being level with the top right at the seam,
a dial indicator on a base would be an appropriate tool.

G'luck.

"Silvan" wrote in message
...
I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.


Assuming you're talking about similar spans on the level, there is the
waterglass option. Broad glass, compare meniscus, go with the level that's
closest.

Of course, in my house, it's flush, not level, that counts in tablesaw
wings. That only requires a straightedge.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw.

Make a water level. Clear hosepipe, duct tape and a squeeze bottle of
water with a drop of dye in it. Take you 10 minutes, guaranteed
accurate.
--
Smert' spamionam

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:34:55 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw.

Make a water level. Clear hosepipe, duct tape and a squeeze bottle of
water with a drop of dye in it. Take you 10 minutes, guaranteed
accurate.
and don't plug up the ends of the pipe. Air has to flow to both ends.
TWS

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan wrote:
I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge with
this method.

Always turn the level end-for-end to make sure that the level itself
isn't crooked. If it shows up as level one direction, but when you swap
ends shows as not level, then the measurement tool is what is technically
known as "crap".

Do you know anyone with a machinists level?

Dave wrote:

If you want to adjust the wing with the table, you should be using a
different measuring device. A level, even an accurate one doesn't have
a very high resolution.

True. I was just looking to get some idea how obvious the difference is
with a level, because, well, because the idea occurred to me at the time
basically.

If you are concerned about the wing sagging or riding high out at the
ends you should use a long, accurate straight edge and reference off
the table. Better would be two used as winding sticks to see if one
corner is higher.

I'm actually concerned about the wing being machined wrong. It's flush at
the edge, but it seems like the far end is too high, or some of the
surfaces of the waffle pattern were not ground down to the same plane as
the edges. I'm having trouble figuring out which is which. If the wing is
flat all the way around, then maybe the edge of the wing or the edge of the
saw needs touching up or shimming, but if it's a high spot, then I guess I
need to think about grinding it down.

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

In article , Groggy wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:
snip

I made the mistake of buying a new No98 Starrett Machinist's level
(cheap off e*ay) and now I can't find a level that is close to doing
its job - except the Starrett (thanks to UA100). One level has gone to
landfill and my other (reasonably new) Lufkin level I'll probably be
taking back.

You too? Bwahahaha!!! Join the club. Damn Starrett anyway...

--
"De inimico non loquaris sed cogites."

A straight edge works great for checking flushness with the main table. If you want to check for level as with respect to gravity, set a ballbearing on the table and see which way it rools.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:10:27 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Dave wrote:

If you want to adjust the wing with the table, you should be using a
different measuring device. A level, even an accurate one doesn't have
a very high resolution.

True. I was just looking to get some idea how obvious the difference is
with a level, because, well, because the idea occurred to me at the time
basically.

If you are concerned about the wing sagging or riding high out at the
ends you should use a long, accurate straight edge and reference off
the table. Better would be two used as winding sticks to see if one
corner is higher.

I'm actually concerned about the wing being machined wrong. It's flush at
the edge, but it seems like the far end is too high, or some of the
surfaces of the waffle pattern were not ground down to the same plane as
the edges. I'm having trouble figuring out which is which. If the wing is
flat all the way around, then maybe the edge of the wing or the edge of the
saw needs touching up or shimming, but if it's a high spot, then I guess I
need to think about grinding it down.
I'm with Dave. I don't think it is important for the top to be
'level' to any significant degree. It is much more important that it
be flat and this you can find with a couple of straight edges or
winding sticks as Dave suggested. A single long straight edge,
referenced to a single corner and then moved to all three other
corners will give you a corner to corner check and then sliding the
straightedge along with it perpendicular to the fence will show up any
high or low spots.

TWS

On 26 Jan 2005 10:02:03 GMT, the inscrutable
otforme (Charlie Self) spake:

Silvan asks:

--snipomatic--

Simple answer: the levels in the combo squares aren't worth the dynamite to
blow them over a squatting flea. They're crappy when new and the first knock
they get sends them totally over limits.

Right. If you want to level a machine, use the proper device, a
precision machinist's level such as this Starrett:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/pro...ProductID=1846
Note the wider, shallower vial.


---
After they make styrofoam, what do they ship it in? --Steven Wright
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

The way you check a level for accuracy is to place it on a fairly level
surface ( level not being critical) and check where the bubble sets. Turn
the level around (180 degrees) and check it again. IF the bubble is in a
different place the level is not accurate.
This happens all the time.
max

I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge with
this method.

So I thought I'd look at two levels simultaneously. I grabbed the head off
an old combination square, that I use for sundry low quality purposes. Put
it on the table, and it showed a huge amount of tilt. Put it on the wing,
and it showed the same huge amount of tilt.

Then I got the head off my good combo square, and it showed the same as the
first one. Grossly out of whack level wise.

I just don't get it. Why would one show perfect and the other show that the
left side of the saw is almost 1/4" higher than the right? That's a huge
difference. My first thought is length. The orange 3-in-1 level is about
3/4" longer than the head of a combo square. My second thought is the size
of the bubble. The bubbles in the combo squares are a bit larger, and the
vials are a bit larger too.

Just for kicks, I also tried with a bullseye level. It shows level all the
way around too.

Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels.

Charlie Self wrote:

Simple answer: the levels in the combo squares aren't worth the dynamite
to blow them over a squatting flea. They're crappy when new and the first
knock they get sends them totally over limits.

I like this answer best of all. "...aren't worth the dynamite to blow them
over a squatting flea." Wunnerful.

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

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

trivial but significant

Interesting use of language.


alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw.

OK.

I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

Why? It was an alignment problem, not a level problem.

I realize that you are a linguist, rather than a logician, but does
the concept of "category error" have any resonance at all?

You are using a verb to solve a noun problem.


watson - who likes to solve noun problems with nouns.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

Hi Silvan,

I set up my new (1 month old) TS to what I
think is almost perfection without picking
up any one of my half-dozen levels.

Don't care much if it's level (as long as the
boards don't slide off!).

It's pretty damn flat tho.

Lou

In article , Silvan
wrote:

I ran into a curious situation today. I have some trivial but significant
alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw. I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

For the first level, one of those orange deals with three vials in it. I
used this to level the saw initially. It reports the saw as being level
all the way around. If I move it out to the waffle wing in question, and
position it appropriately, it also reports the wing as being level all the
way around. Whatever difference there might be is too small to gauge with
this method.

So I thought I'd look at two levels simultaneously. I grabbed the head off
an old combination square, that I use for sundry low quality purposes. Put
it on the table, and it showed a huge amount of tilt. Put it on the wing,
and it showed the same huge amount of tilt.

Then I got the head off my good combo square, and it showed the same as the
first one. Grossly out of whack level wise.

I just don't get it. Why would one show perfect and the other show that the
left side of the saw is almost 1/4" higher than the right? That's a huge
difference. My first thought is length. The orange 3-in-1 level is about
3/4" longer than the head of a combo square. My second thought is the size
of the bubble. The bubbles in the combo squares are a bit larger, and the
vials are a bit larger too.

Just for kicks, I also tried with a bullseye level. It shows level all the
way around too.

Weird. No, there's nothing stuck to either of the square heads, no hardware
protruding; no reason I can discern why both of them show such a huge
difference from the other two levels.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:18:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Right. If you want to level a machine, use the proper device, a
precision machinist's level such as this Starrett:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/pro...ProductID=1846

Even nicer is when you pick up the little one from eBay for
_one_pound_ ($2 !) 8-)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:35:38 -0500, the inscrutable Tom Watson
spake:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:02:55 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

trivial but significant

Interesting use of language.


alignment problem with the left wing of my table saw.

OK.

I was attempting to
gauge how far out of whack it is by comparing two levels.

Why? It was an alignment problem, not a level problem.

I realize that you are a linguist, rather than a logician, but does
the concept of "category error" have any resonance at all?

He wasn't a very cunning linguist in this case, was he?


You are using a verb to solve a noun problem.

watson - who likes to solve noun problems with nouns.

So should the poor boy be deverbed or denounsed?
Don't just point out the problem, supply a solution, please.


================================================== ======
Was that an African + http://www.diversify.com
or European Swallow? + Gourmet Web Applications
================================================== ======

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:21:27 +0000, the inscrutable Andy Dingley
spake:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:18:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Right. If you want to level a machine, use the proper device, a
precision machinist's level such as this Starrett:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/pro...ProductID=1846

Even nicer is when you pick up the little one from eBay for
_one_pound_ ($2 !) 8-)

You Suck, Andy. (Ya waggler.


================================================== ======
Was that an African + http://www.diversify.com
or European Swallow? + Gourmet Web Applications
================================================== ======

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:13:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:21:27 +0000, the inscrutable Andy Dingley
spake:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:18:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Right. If you want to level a machine, use the proper device, a
precision machinist's level such as this Starrett:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/pro...ProductID=1846

Even nicer is when you pick up the little one from eBay for
_one_pound_ ($2 !) 8-)

You Suck, Andy. (Ya waggler.

Andy did better than I did. I managed to pick up the 8" No98 off eBay
for Au$90 (US$65), brand new. Very nice thing to have.

Groggs

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:13:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

You Suck, Andy.

Damn right 8-)

Bad photo, mislabelled - perfect noodling territory for the watchful
bottom feeder.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:08:02 -0800, that artful codger Larry Jaques
wrote:


So should the poor boy be deverbed or denounsed?
Don't just point out the problem, supply a solution, please.


OK. I'd start with Wittgenstein but then move forward in time a bit
to Foucault (not the pendulum dude, the other dude) then go backwards
to Russell, Kant, and Descartes.

Steer betweeen the Scylla of Phenomenology and the Charybdis of
Dialectical Materialism.

Follow this line through Aquinas, thence to Aristotle, and at this
point you should be able to figure out which tool to use to deal with
your alignment problem.

OBWW: You can't make Logic without a Log.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:58:44 GMT, the inscrutable Groggy
spake:

Even nicer is when you pick up the little one from eBay for
_one_pound_ ($2 !) 8-)

You Suck, Andy. (Ya waggler.

Andy did better than I did. I managed to pick up the 8" No98 off eBay
for Au$90 (US$65), brand new. Very nice thing to have.

Yes, I can imagine.

I keep my eyes peeled but haven't found a decent level at
any garage sales yet. sigh


================================================== ======
Was that an African + http://www.diversify.com
or European Swallow? + Gourmet Web Applications
================================================== ======

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:03:02 +0000, the inscrutable Andy Dingley
spake:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:13:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

You Suck, Andy.

Damn right 8-)

Bad photo, mislabelled - perfect noodling territory for the watchful
bottom feeder.

Grok that. I keep an eye out for misspellings which leave the
item virtually unseen, then snatch it up for a song.


================================================== ======
Was that an African + http://www.diversify.com
or European Swallow? + Gourmet Web Applications
================================================== ======

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:18:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 26 Jan 2005 10:02:03 GMT, the inscrutable
(Charlie Self) spake:

Silvan asks:

--snipomatic--

Simple answer: the levels in the combo squares aren't worth the dynamite to
blow them over a squatting flea. They're crappy when new and the first knock
they get sends them totally over limits.

Right. If you want to level a machine, use the proper device, a
precision machinist's level such as this Starrett:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/pro...ProductID=1846
Note the wider, shallower vial.

if you think you're anal about machinery setup, don't get one of
these. it'll show you the difference of how level your table saw top
is when your next door neighbor sneezes.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:58:44 GMT, Groggy
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:13:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:21:27 +0000, the inscrutable Andy Dingley
spake:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:18:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Right. If you want to level a machine, use the proper device, a
precision machinist's level such as this Starrett:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/pro...ProductID=1846

Even nicer is when you pick up the little one from eBay for
_one_pound_ ($2 !) 8-)

You Suck, Andy. (Ya waggler.

Andy did better than I did. I managed to pick up the 8" No98 off eBay
for Au$90 (US$65), brand new. Very nice thing to have.

Groggs


I paid about US $40 for the 8" on ebay. used, but perfectly
functional.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:30:09 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:08:02 -0800, that artful codger Larry Jaques
wrote:


So should the poor boy be deverbed or denounsed?
Don't just point out the problem, supply a solution, please.


OK. I'd start with Wittgenstein but then move forward in time a bit
to Foucault (not the pendulum dude, the other dude) then go backwards
to Russell, Kant, and Descartes.

Steer betweeen the Scylla of Phenomenology and the Charybdis of
Dialectical Materialism.

Follow this line through Aquinas, thence to Aristotle, and at this
point you should be able to figure out which tool to use to deal with
your alignment problem.

OBWW: You can't make Logic without a Log.




tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

Oh WTF! Just expose him to Korzybski and be done with it.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Friday 28 Jan 2005 7:04 am, Silvan scribbled:

I guess I need to come up with a really straight straight edge that
doesn't
flex, and some feeler gauges. Neither of which I have, or I would
have done it that way already.

Make your own straightedges like I did. See

http://home.comcast.net/~jaswensen/m...ight_edge.html

--
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html

Tom Watson wrote:

Why? It was an alignment problem, not a level problem.

True, but if I could establish the level of the main body of the saw in a
sufficiently precise way, and then compare the level of the wing in a
similarly precise way, I could gauge how much the two planes diverge from
each other. It seems a reasonable enough theory; I just don't have
anything to measure levelness with sufficient precision to produce any
useful information.

I guess I need to come up with a really straight straight edge that doesn't
flex, and some feeler gauges. Neither of which I have, or I would have
done it that way already.

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

"Silvan" wrote in message
...
Tom Watson wrote:

Why? It was an alignment problem, not a level problem.

True, but if I could establish the level of the main body of the saw in a
sufficiently precise way, and then compare the level of the wing in a
similarly precise way, I could gauge how much the two planes diverge from
each other. It seems a reasonable enough theory; I just don't have
anything to measure levelness with sufficient precision to produce any
useful information.

I guess I need to come up with a really straight straight edge that
doesn't
flex, and some feeler gauges. Neither of which I have, or I would have
done it that way already.

You're going to work wood on this, aren't you? Need wood tolerance.
You'll be using a jointed edge to reference your cuts, use one now.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:43:47 +0000, Luigi Zanasi
wrote:


Make your own straightedges like I did. See

http://home.comcast.net/~jaswensen/m...ight_edge.html

Good link! Thanks,
TWS

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:08:02 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I realize that you are a linguist, rather than a logician, but does
the concept of "category error" have any resonance at all?

He wasn't a very cunning linguist in this case, was he?


Cute.

GregP wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:08:02 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I realize that you are a linguist, rather than a logician, but does
the concept of "category error" have any resonance at all?

He wasn't a very cunning linguist in this case, was he?


Cute.

I've proven that I wasn't a very cunning linguist in this case for sure. It
took reading that a dozen times to get the joke. Duh.

Well, for the record, I AM a cunning linguist, dammit. Just ask SWMBO.

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

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:33:26 -0500, Silvan
wrote:


Well, for the record, I AM a cunning linguist, dammit. Just ask SWMBO.


How is SWMBO doing ? I assume that she's home & back
in charge.

GregP wrote:

Well, for the record, I AM a cunning linguist, dammit. Just ask SWMBO.



How is SWMBO doing ? I assume that she's home & back
in charge.

She made an official proclamation that "swim-bo" was back on the job about
two weeks ago, I guess. She gets the rest of the tubes out in two weeks.
She's back at work. Worked part time last week. Back at work full-time as
of today. She's doing pretty well. Getting to gossip with all her
she-buddies about all the juicy gossipy hoosabludgja has done wonders for
her.

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