In many ways it's the same thing. You've just substituted the dial indicator for a more subjective measurement technique. Yes, it can be pretty "fiddley" and does take some practice. The "carry" (as people like to refer to it) will be affected by how sharp the knives are. Dull knives will tend to rub or scrape more than they carry - especially with a steel rule. I have used this method with varying degrees of success - mostly because I'm just not any good at judging "rubs" and "scrapes". It wasn't too difficult to adjust a knife so that it was fairly equal all the way across. However, I have found it to be very difficult to obtain consistent results from knife to knife so that they all travel in the same circle. There's just a whole bunch of going round and round the cutter head from knife to knife continuously adjusting until you think that they are all even. And, of course, it doesn't address the infeed table adjustment.
With the dial > You can go down the dial indicator track if you want to go that way. I just
You have this confidence because you are proficient at using a subjective measurement technique (what others are calling the "carry"). It is easy for you to judge rubs or scrapes and obtain accurate results (or at least accurate enough to satisfy your needs). It's pretty obvious that the OP doesn't have your level of proficiency. He is frustrated and unsure. He needs a more objective measurement technique.
I notice you didn't comment on this particular point.
With enough experience a person can look at the results from one pass and come up with a list of likely causes for the symptoms. Obviously, the OP doesn't have that level of experience. It doesn't do him any good to say that he must apply skills and experience that he doesn't have.
Even if a person has the experience to understand "Jointerese", he would still need to decide which of the possible causes was the most likely. Then, if he was still dogmatically opposed to using a dial indicator, he would have to proceed with blindly making an adjustment and doing another test cut to determine if the problem got worse, better, or stayed the same. From those results, he would have to decide to continue with the adjustments or try fixing another possible cause. This is "test cut hell". Even the most experienced person can't avoid doing more test cuts and suffering some degree of frustrating uncertainty. There is no such frustration or uncertainty when using a dial indicator.
An analogy might be helpful. What if a doctor approached his job in the same manner: "Avoid diagnostic tests or equipment and let the patient tell me what is wrong." So, you go in and tell him you have a headache. Using his highly refined diagnostic skills he narrows the symptoms down to "eyestrain" or "brain tumor". Since the latter is far more serious than the former, he wants to rule it out first. So, he schedules you for brain surgery.
I gotta give you this one. This particular sceneraio would definitely put a guy like me in a big bind.
The brain is the best tool in the shop.
People pay you $55 an hour to do test cuts? And they say that I charge too much! Where can I sign up?
In the meantime he would like to be doing woodworking rather than goofing around with his machine and doing more test cuts. I just don't understand the "dial indicator phobia" which compells people to avoid using one and say whatever they can to dissuade others from using one.
FWIW, lots of these methods were developed when $10-15 Chinese dial indicators didn't exist.
Why make it harder than it is?
I don't have any of Ed's products. They WILL make things easier for those without the skills or experience to get it done with "old methods", allowing them to better get on with creating things from wood. However, as big of a Frid fan as I am, a cheapie dial indicator, using the information freely provided by Mr. Bennett, makes a _better_ setup easier and faster to obtain, using very inexpensive equipment. Ed's stuff also makes lots of sense where time is money, and spending an hour or two making setup jigs from scrap would cost more than simply buying his stuff.
I'm always shocked at how many woodworkers will toss 4-6" of EVERY board (when good wood is $5.00-$9.00 bd/ft, forget exotics!), before they'll spend $25 on a cheap dial indicator and magnetic base.
: I'm always shocked at how many woodworkers will toss 4-6" of EVERY : board (when good wood is $5.00-$9.00 bd/ft, forget exotics!), before : they'll spend $25 on a cheap dial indicator and magnetic base.
I've had three ex-wives tell me I didn't know what I was talking about so you guys can just get in line behind them.
I bridge two heavy duty magnets from the outfeed table on the theory that they will contact the arc of the cutters at one, and only one, point ... TDC ... the point of tangency. In reality, they make contact over a short range of motion but, combined with eyeballing their orientation, it's 'close enough for horseshoes'.
With the blades thus suspended, I adjust the outfeed table so that the blade height matches the setting spider and then tighten the gibs to lock them down. This particular adjustment takes roughly 5 minutes for both jointer blades.
Now, if I could just stop trying to joint embedded gravel ....
Bill
BTW ... Wife #4 and I have our 6th anniversary in about 2 weeks. SHE thinks I have a clue.
I won't go to the trouble of replying to each comment. Basically what it all boils down to is lack of understanding of the machine. How does one get to understand the fundamentals of anything if they always take the short road. The methods I have passed on are the 'traditional' methods of setting up a jointer which have always worked for the craftsman of the past and still apply today.If you look at a jointer from back in say the early 1900's and look at a jointer from today (or any machine for that matter) the basic principles and design of the machine has not changed, with the exception of better guarding nowadays.Although the old methods do take a little more practise thye do encourage logical thinking and you will learn from the experience and from there next time something is happening you will know just where to start looking because you understand the mechanicals of what is happening, Once a quality machine(or even a reasonably quality for that matter) is set up properly there is no need for 'fine tuning' excepting after things like changing knives. Even then it should only involve resetting knife height which should take between cpl of minutes to half an hour depending on machine design.
I wish I did get $55/hr just for test cuts. I actually specialise in traditional detail joinery and restoration done the traditional ways.
If one takes the time to understand the fundamentals of a machine in the learning days there is virtually no time or timber wasted on test cuts further down the track, or time wasted trying to figure out what is wrong by using dial indicators. The understanding from this experience wil enable one to diagnose future problems without virtually having to think about it. The dial indicator will solve this problem but it does very little towards understanding the mechanicals of what is happening.
For me it's time savings, an uber value based around a $25 indicator and magnetic base set. I can drop in a new set of knives and set them exactly the same distance, exactly parallel to the cutterhead in seconds. This is true even if the sharpener messed up the knives and didn't get the cutting edge parallel to the back edge, or the knives are slightly different widths. It took me much longer with sticks, steel rules, magnets, or anything else I used.
FWIW, years ago I used to argue on this forum about how a dial indicator was unnecessary, as I set up my machines nicely without one. Go figure...
First point here is why would you bother installing a set of dull knives in the first place. The only time a set of knives should need setting is after changing the knives .... which would be sharp. If the cutterblock is turned slowly and smoothly the knives would have to have a fair radius on the edge to not carry. The timber straight edge is probably the easiest and most common to use.
It is all a matter of learning. How long did it take you to learn to walk? Do you now have to think everytime you take a step, or has it just become second nature to know just how high to lift your foot and how far to move it? No need to go round and round. Set the first knife to the height of outfeed table. When you have it set right move to the next knife. When you have it set accuratly move to the third knife ( assuming you have 3)
With the carry method you also just set it to zero. End of story. No guessing. Every knife is level and equal with every other knife.
Unless a machine has had a major accident or been the victim of extreme violence the infeed table should not need any adjustment after inital setup. In this case there is a prob with the infeed table (which is what started all this debate). The problem of it being out of plane with the rear table can be very easily rectified using no more than a steel straight edge (deffinately steel in this case) and a pair of eyes.
lets look at the two methods.
Old way lay straightedge on rear table towards one side above slides bring up front table to match (look across rule till you see no light between it and table) muve straight edge to other side of table above slides woops I see light under straight edge dig out some shims to fill gap between straight edge and table Now you have the shims for that side Problen solved.
Dial method Place dial indicator on rear table towards one side above slides bring up front table to zero indicator Move indicator to other side of table above slides woops I need .004" shim two possibble routes from here route 1 go to drawer dig out vernier dig out some shims and measure till I find .004" Now you have the shims for that side route 2 Oh shoot I dont have vernier or cant find it undo slide install shim which I think is about .004" tigthen gibs measure again woops that shim was only .003" undo, find a .001" shim tighten gigs measure again ... phew thats lucky i got it right this time
same place. The only difference is what you see and learn along the way.
The dial indicator doesn't eliminate the need for thinking or for understanding of the machine. It's not a shortcut on the road to knowledge. It's just a measurement device which provides very accurate and objective information about the machine's adjustments. You can just blindly measure all the adjustments but you still need to understand what they should be and why before you decide if they need to be changed.
The difference between the two methods boils down to one (and only one) thing. The measurement device (or technique) used to provide feedback on any adjustments that might be needed. You advocate using the results from test cuts to determine what needs to be adjusted and to track your adjustment progress. I use the dial indicator. Both of us agree that the knives need to be equal with the height of the outfeed table. Both of us agree that the infeed table needs to be parallel to the outfeed table.
Both of us can look at the results of a test cut and interpret the symptoms to a likely set of causes. But, I'm not going to start shimming slide ways until after I have actually measured and confirmed that the infeed table is not parallel with the outfeed table. Having no accurate measurement device (other than the test cut), you are compelled to blindly start shimming (because you believe it is the most likely cause) and then do another test cut to see what effect (if any) it had.
Both methods work and both methods can be used to obtain equally accurate results. I prefer using a dial indicator because I think it is faster (no need for test cuts) and I think it's easier to obtain accurate results (because you don't have to make subjective judgements of scrapes or rubs).
The > I won't go to the trouble of replying to each comment. Basically what it all
Like I said in the previous reply, using a dial indicator doesn't let you ignore what the adjustments do or what they should be set to. You still have to understand the fundamentals. The dial indicator just gives you quick and and accurate feedback.
You seem to be avoid> If one takes the time to understand the fundamentals of a machine in the
Why can't you just place a stack of test shims on the infeed table, under the dial indicator, and recheck the height until you get it right, exactly like the method used with the straight edge? Or conversely, if the straight edge indicates one side is low, install a random shim and recheck, just like your proposed method for using the dial indicator.
I don't own a jointer and have never tried to align one, but even I can see this is not the best method.
Just an observation here, but some people learn better by reading, and thinking about things, and then maybe trying a small number of experiments to verify correctness, and other people learn better by trying hundreds of experiments, and then thinking about the results. (The theoretical vs. experimental methods.) And some people enjoy mucking around with tools, and others just want to get it working correctly as quickly as possible, so they can get on with building something. (If you like mucking about, and are of an experimentalist bent, is there anything wrong with intentionally misaligning your jointer and running some scrap through it to see what happens? You could spend a day or two playing this way, and would probably learn a lot. If you were a genius, you might discover a use for an intentionally misaligned jointer. Maybe David Marks or somebody already has?) Then there's the matter of investment of time. If you are going to be working in a woodshop full time as a career,
40-50 hours a week, for 50 years, then spending a lot of time at the beginning learning 15 different ways to adjust a jointer or sharpen a chisel will probably save you more time in the long run, since you will end up doing it dozens or hundreds of times. If you're a hobbyist, working a few weekends a month, and doing lots of other things as well (I seem to spend a lot more time finishing, painting, etc. than I do laying out or cutting or assembling), then learning one quick and easy method is a better choice.
My first inclination when something doesn't fit right is to measure. Other people might find other methods (comparison, e.g. a story stick or the plastic gizmo someone mentioned, or sighting, I.e. using a straight edge) easier. I don't think there is any one right method for everyone.
Hmmmm.....have you ever needed to shift the knives to avoid a nick? Let's say that you use the traditional (hear the scrape, feel the rub) method. But, you're not so good at it. So, one of your knives is slightly higher than the others (say a few thousandths). That knife will do most of the cutting and wear faster than the others. It will be dull before the others. So, it doesn't respond the same in the "carry" method. It doesn't rub or scrape the same. And, you know that the knife alignment will need to be checked after shifting because it's not likely that the front edge is parallel to the back to within a few thousandths. Personally, I don't find this to be such an absurd or remote situation. I think that this happens to everybody.
I'm just not good at guesswork. I don't have confidence in the results. Too many times I have measured my performance at "feel the rub" or "hear the scrape" methods and have found the results to be very inaccurate. I know that some people can do it accurately but I don't have that ability. And, based on the calls and email from countless customers, I am confident that I'm not alone in this. Perhaps you just have a natural ability here. Or, perhaps you have never measured the results and, like so many others, you just don't expect much from your woodworking machines. Maybe you would be completely amazed by the performance of a properly aligned set of knives.
Sorry Paul, this is beginning to remind me of a load of bovine fecal matter. There is no "zero" with the "carry" method. From a distance of infinity to almost touching the bar (or rule or piece of wood) nothing happens. Is this your "zero"? The whole problem comes in when you try to judge that range between not touching and actually carrying the bar. How much is a rub? A scrape? Did it move? Maybe, maybe not, I can't tell. I think it lifted. No that was a rub. It scrapes when using a rule but it carries a piece of wood. Oh no, the knife squirmed a bit when tighteneing, it was scraping but now it's definitely carrying. Geez, what a stupid ignorant nightmare. Is the needle of the dial indicator on zero? Yes. Done.
Or it's a low quality model, or a moron sat on it, or you have parallelogram mounts and not dovetail ways, ... Surely you aren't saying that this adjustment is so uncommon that there's no need to address it, are you?
So, it does happen!
So, something other than "jointerese"? Really! But I thought that you didn't need any instruments. Just listen to what the machine was telling you, right? Use the force, eh? One test cut and only one test cut will solve the whole problem.
Yep, that is a fine way to do it. I prefer reading a dial indicator to sighting tiny gaps and subjectively judging the fit of shimms in a tiny gap. However, this method works just fine. But, it isn't the method that you first proposed. Originally you said that one could just learn to listen to what the machine was saying and if you were smart enough you could fix anything with nothing more than the results of a test cut.
This definitely is a big load of bovine fecal matter. Geez, what a rediculous strawman.
Place the indicator jig on the outfeed table with the stylus on the infeed table.
Zero the dial indicator on the higher side of the infeed table (if there really is a problem).
Move the stylus to the other side of the infeed table.
Place shims under stylus to bring the reading back up to zero.
Put shimms into slide way on the lower side of the table
Done. I think it's pretty obvious why you object to the dial indicator. A little introspection might help. Why do you feel compelled to make the dial indicator method look rediculous? It has always been my experience that people usually ridicule, overstate their case, and exaggerate to absurdity when they feel threatened by something.
In this particular case, there is absolutely no difference in what you see and learn. In both cases you use a measurement device to determine the proper thickness of a shim. The difference is in the measurement device. One is easy to read and provides you very accurate results (dial indicator). The other requires you to sight a tiny gap and subjectively fit shims (straight edge). Both can be used successfully to solve the problem with accurate results.
The real point here is this: Using "jointerese" to correct error in the infeed table of a jointer is so tedius and absurd that even it's proponent doesn't recommend it.
I understand the concept of three points defining a plane, but not exactly what you're describing in reference to the jointer's outfeed table. Were you just removing one bolt? I should note here that I don't own a jointer yet, so that may be the problem with my understanding your description.
Sounds like a promising bit of information to file away for later use, I just can't quite visualize what you're describing.
I've been thinking about this entire subject a great deal, and here's what I've come up with.
What you're advocating is an easy way for an unexperienced person to accurately set up and align machinery for the woodshop.
(In all the following argument, "carpenter" will be used to represent an average woodworker, as it is a common background from which many fine woodworkers come)
Most woodworking equipment is not manufactured to a standard that will hold a machine shop's equipment's tolerances. (You can disagree, but I think that's a fair enough statement, having used both)
As a result of the poorer quality of manufacturing, combined with a common difference between woodworking and metalwork- namely, that woodworking machinery is more often moved to a jobsite than metalworking equipment, woodworkers have developed a vast array of hints and tips that depend heavily on a tradesman's "touch", whereas machinists have developed a standard that depends heavily on consistancy and measuring devices.
Neither is wrong- or even signifigantly more accurate than the other. (I will grant that machinist work is more precise, but precision and accuracy have different definitions.) What we are debating is experience V. inexperience.
Having worked in both trades, my personal assessment is this:
A machinist requires a smaller, but signifigantly more precise and expensive set of tools one required by a carpenter, which can stay in one location, protected from the elements for years.
A carpenter requires a larger and less expensive set of tools than a machinist, ant they need to be moved to each new jobsite as required- consistantly changing alignments and requiring lighter construction for easy transport.
These two things create experience in fundimentally different ways-
A machinist learns early on to trust indicators and known references, such as a flat granite plate and a dial indicator. He then spends his time refining techniques that allow him to achieve repeatability in his measurements, and learning formulae that aid him in interpreting his measurement devices.
A carpenter learns early on that his square might be out of square for any number of reasons, ranging from dropping it from a rooftop, to one of the other guys on his crew dropping a saw on it while loading the truck. Because of this, he quickly develops a mistrust of measuring devices, and spends his time learning to "see" squareness, and "feel" straightness. I can tell you without any hyperbole whatsover that I can measure tape coming off a roll to within 1/16 of an inch by the sound it makes as it seperates from the layer below, and see squareness to within 15 minutes of a degree (even though I may think of it as one-quarter degree) without a measurement device. I've put up entire buildings with a roll of mason's twine and a tape measure with a bent hook and a rusty blade that were within 1/16" of square (corner to corner) over a 100' x 50' area by myself. To tell you the truth, I rarely even bother with a square *or* a level, until checking the final product to make sure my eye is still *calibrated.* If you doubt this, find any experienced framing carpenter and watch him whack the end off a 2x4 with a circular saw while it's balanced on his knee- then check the cut with whatever you like for squareness.
You understand the machinists' method, so I'm not going to pursue that- what I'll do from here on out is describe an average woodworker's point of view, which you have (for better or worse- I will not make that call, because I feel that they are both valuable) departed from.
A woodworker's tools are often subjected to the elements. It is not uncommon to find a square covered in rust, or a tape measure full of sand. That just happens when you're working outside, even if you're careful.
That accumulated and sometimes immediate damage to the tooling is never a viable excuse for shoddy work. Despite your apparent point of view, most construction and woodwork must be perfect. (Remember that when I am talking about "perfect" here, it is influenced by scale- a machinist rarely needs to worry about the amount that the wind can deflect a measuring tape over a 100' run in a 40 mph wind- in that case, 1/16" is "perfect", or if you prefer, "dead nuts") A cabinet maker is required to hold a tolerance of 1/64"-1/128"- even if an apprentice on the job smacks one of his tools with a hammer, or drops a toolbox in a moment of carelessness.
Because of the accumulated damage to his measuring tools, a carpenter develops a set of "grooves in the brain" that act as go/no go guages when looking at things. This is something that most machinists do not require, and do not normally develop. Some do, of course, but it is less common than it is in a construction setting- especially considering that a machinist's tolerances are smaller than a human eye can normally discern.
What you've been encountering when defending the use of machinists' measurement tools for woodworking is a result of this. Those "grooves" I described above are much more accurate than you might imagine, and they're a hard-won rewiring of a tradesman's brain. They don't "work" for oddball measurements (at least, not for me,) but they are very accurate for things like "parallel", "square", "even", "length", "distance", "pitch", "level" and common measurements (determined by the tradesman in question's specialty).
When you claim that these skills are resorting to mere trial-and-error in an experienced tradesman, it can be nothing *but* offensive. In a person new to the avocation or hobby, precision measurement is a very useful alternative.
I can machine a blank to within .002-.005 of nominal with a handheld die-grinder (though it's obviously a lot more work and mess than using a mill) without a caliper or mic because of my experiences in woodworking. I don't care if you believe that claim or not, and it's ultimately unimportant that you do- I am just trying to help you understand your target market a little better,
What you've got going with the Ts-aligner is not a bad idea- and it has the potential to shave a huge amount of effort off the woodworker's learning curve. There is nothing wrong with making the task easier and more repeatable- I am simply trying to help you with one particular sentiment that I have seen in many of your posts, both overtly and implied. That sentiment is that most woodworkers are
*guessing* at measurements and settings if they are not using machinist's instruments to measure them.
It isn't true. It took me a bit of self-analysis to know why it isn't, but the above might help you understand- if you don't already.
As a way to help you get your point across, this may well be a useful thing to understand and acknowledge. I'm assuming that you are a woodworker yourself, and not just the manufacturer of a piece of woodworking equipment. Imagine if you were not making the Ts-aligner, and someone called you "ignorant" for using the skills you had earned through repeated use and consideration- you'd get a little hot under the collar, too.
No need to alienate the folks you're trying to "educate," right? Both trades have their lessons to teach- just try and remember the woodworker's lessons when you're advocating the machinist's! Please don't take it personally- this isn't a lecture, but a gentle reminder of something you may have forgotten. To tell you the truth, I'm almost ready to get one of your tools for setting up my planer.
Being a machinist helps me be a better woodworker, and being a woodworker helps me be a better machinist- keep that in mind. It's like learning multiple languages- each one makes the next a little easier- but learning a new one doesn't make the older ones obsolete!
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.