Today while trying to adjust the out/infeed tables on my DW733 planer, The tab, and then the eyelet that attaches the dust shroud to the planer snapped off. The weight/tension of my dust collection hose tourqued it just a bit too much and snapped this marginally designed connector of this part.
Needless to say I was fit to be tied.
Option 1: Fix it. I doubt slathering epoxy on this thing will offer any strength. I would have to do a repair that was stronger then the original repair. Encase it in fiberglass mesh & resin perhaps? Would that stick to plastic?
Option 2 replace it:
formatting link
part Dewalt shows on line is NOT what I have. Mine exhausts 90 degrees to the left. This one exits 45 degrees to the right and has no visible tabs on the corners. While the new version looks improved from an airflow perspective, I can't see how it attaches. I'm wondering if Dewalt realized that the tabs were just an accident waiting to happen and redesigned it.
Does anybody have the new version of the dust shroud? How does it attach? Did it come with your 733, or did you get it after?
Look carefully at the photo (it's easier to see in the larger version). There's a little sheet metal lip on the top. There are two slotted holes (totally invisible in the photo) in this top lip. A couple of small screws go vertically down through this lip into the planer body. A third screw goes horizontally through a slotted hole in the bottom lip (this one is easy to see in the photo).
It should if you rough it up a bit. I suposse you could pop rivit a piece of sheet metal to the hood, and put your exoxy or fiberglass over that. Tony D.
This part seems to be made of nylon, and if true, nothing's going to adhere to it. You'll have to get a new one if you want it to work the same as it did before breaking.
Or you try fixing the one one you have with metal tabs pop riveted to it.
Lazarus Long wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Third option - what I did.
I got a thin strip on sheet metal. About 2 inches long and 3/4 inch wide. It was probably 16 or 18 guage. I bent a hook on the flat side to catch the lip on the planer. I bent it in the general shape of the original. Then I just pop rivited it to the hood. Works beter than ever. Took about 15 minutes.
Never did attach the shroud to mine, I'd just a soon sweep afterward, the savings are so big they don't get in the air. I only use it for planing down dimensional lumber anyway, if I want to plane oak or other hardwoods I use my 18" planer and it is connected to the DC.
Actually, there's a good reason why it _isn't_ there.
The vast majority of 'mis-spelled' words *are*also* legitimate words, if you consult a 'big enough' dictionary.
Except in a few specialized contexts -- like woodworking -- 'planing' is much more likely to be a mis-spelling of "planning" than it is to be the word that was actually 'intiended'.
A "quality" dictionary for spell-checking has an interesting 'conflict' of requirements. Obviously, it needs to recognize 'commonly encountered' words that are spelled correctly. However, if it recognizes 'commonly encountered' *mis-spellings* of common words as "correct spelling of an exotic/archaic/rarely-used word", It's usefulness _as_ a spelling checker is greatly diminished.
To make even a 'moderately reliable' GUESS at whether any given word is (a) a mis-spelling of a different word, or (b) the correct spelling of a less-common word, is a *very* difficult proposition. Checking the grammar _can_ help somewhat, but is neither easy, nor definitive. Beyond that, one must have extensive knowledge of the -meaning- of words, and the ability to analyze the external context which they describe.
A 'textbook' exmaple: (A) Fruit flies like a banana. (B) Time flies like an arrow.
"Whatintheh*ll" does the word "like' mean in each statement? or "flies"?
And _how_ do you know whicn meaning to associate with the word in each context?
Let alone a more frivolous construct -- everybody knows about the cousin of a frog -- the toad. Some of which live primarily up trees. (there, I got in the obligarory wood reference!) Of those who do, one method of classification is the number of appendages on their feet. Thus, there is the "three-toed tree toad". Put one of them in a cart that is being pulled by 'something else', and you have a "towed three-toed toad", aka a 'three-toed towed toad'. And I betcha your spell-checker will *not* choke over "three-toad toed towed". I'm pretty sure that that -last- varient wouldn't get by a grammar-checker, but I wouldn't want to bet that either of the first two forms _would_.
Not to mention the difficulties encountered in transcribing the former, as a *spoken* phrase into written language. (yes, I'm _sure_ he *said*: "Three towed towed towed", no I _don 't_ understand what he *meant*!)
I was ready to give the pop-rivet and metal tab a try (thanks for the suggestions guys... I would not have noticed that little metal lip had it not been pointed out.) but I thougth I would give Dewalt a shot.
I got a warm body on the phone on about a minute, and "Tim" offered to send me out a "metal dust shroud" in place of the plastic one...free of charge, without even asking for the serial number, or date of sale.
Kudos to Dewalt for comming through with a replacement part for a weak link in an otherwise great product.
You mean you don't have a copy of Strunk & White on your bookshelf??
This one is standard typography. The word is being used literally, i.e. not meaning what it is defined to mean, but standing for the word itself. Single- and double-quotes can be used more-or-less interchangeably for this (and for _most_ uses of quote-marks), subject to the risks of confusion when employed in differing uses, in relative lexical proximity.
Think underlined. something one cannot do in plain ASCII (a traditional usage dating back 30+ years, when using 'plain text' mediums that do not support over-printing.)
and bold-face. (of similar antiquity, and origins, as _underline_ ) [ also, -italic-, and (comparatively rare) =double-underline= ] [ all showing "emphasis", differing in degree and/or type ]
USENET is generally closer to the spoken version of the language, than the formal written language. DESPITE being written down. bold, underline, all- caps, italic, etc. all convey what would be indicated by varying degrees of emphasis/stress on the spoken word.
Again, a _standard_ typographical convention. (in real printing, it's an "em dash", before and after, rather than two "minus sign" characters. Similar to a parenthetical phrase; an interruption in the flow that clarifies the preceding remark.
There are several standard typographical uses for this, beyond straight quotation. Including, not necessarily in frequency of use: a) a literal, as mentioned above, re: "'planing'" b) a thing being named c) a "suspect" usage -- where you want to emphasize that the word doesn't actually mean what it usually means. e.g. "quality" Harbor Freight tools. d) a characteristic of a class of objects, as distinct from the meaning of that characteristic as associated with a specific object.
Yet again, just standard typography. Multiple things that all fit.
Zats' awright. You mis-used almost all the typographical conventions, anyway. (underlining 'your' *was* an appropriate use -- you slipped up on that one :) I take it though, it's ok with you for me to get "somebody else's" nose out of joint ?
Seriously, it is _very_ difficult to convey precise "shades" of intonation and/or meaning in the printed word. Which is almost the entire reason that all the complexities and features of typesetting/typography exist. Things like: different type faces, font sizes, "bold", "italic", "underline", "all- caps", "small caps", etc., etc., ad nauseum Probably 90% of which is not
*consciously* noted by at least 90% of the readership. Emphasis on the word "consciously".
When one is limited to "Dumb-ass key terminals" (as a friend's wife once referred to the machine sitting on her desk at work), and the accompanying limitations of ASCII-only display, the substitutes/work-arounds for those means of conveying shades of meaning do become more 'consciously noticed'.
The more aware one is of the possibilities for mis-reading/mis-interpreting casually jotted-down "off the cuff" remarks, the more likely one is to add 'cues' as to how to read the remarks so as to reduce, as much as possible, the likelihood of such mis-interpretation.
In other words, "Yes, Dave, there _is_ a madness to my method."
"Stephen M" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews4.newsguy.com:
I didn't even know such an animal exists! My planer is a year old now so it is probably not covered by warentee. If the dust shroud should fail again I will have to order one.
Maybe not. (that is you may not have to pay for one)
My machine is 2 years old. The warantee period is one year. They did not ask. I can only presume that, to them, customer satisfaction is more important than strict warantee enforcement. I'm also willing to bet that this part has failed for quite a few people and they are aware that it is a weak point in the design (why else would they redesign the part?).
Excellent primer! NO S & W. I've got a HUGE dictionary which we use when playing word games such as Milton Bradley's Upwords. (Ever played that? We prefer it to Scrabble®). When I'm on the pc I will use the online references.
You might have noticed that my usual method of emphasis is to use UPPER CASE. It is simple and I HOPE most folks "get it". :)
BTW, I've been "mis-understood" more than a coupla times!
By long-standing USENET convention, all-caps, except when used for identifying an acronym, is the equivalent of shouting. It's the _most_ _emphatic_ modifier you can apply.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.