Jointer Trouble

woodworking-forum.com
Promoting woodworking discussion.

Main

Date: 14 Nov 2006 10:11:01
From:
Subject: Jointer Trouble

Hello,
I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
machine. Let me get to the problem first.

All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
nuts this is making me?

I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner. I get
the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea. I've
read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
from 90 to 0 degrees. Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
this morning and same thing.

Help!

Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:26:00
From: dpb
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
...
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. ...

I can't tell which surface and which dimension/angle with respect of
surface to edge you're having a problem with from your description...

Are you ending up w/ stock of varying thickness while trying to surface
it or an edge that is out of square w/ the face?

If the former, there's a note from Swingman that I concur is quite
likely a possibility that is technique-related unless you made a
description error. If the latter, the fence may be out of square w/
the tables rather than the knives being out of adjustment.

Your description of technique/process also left me a little confused as
well as to what you're after w/ a jointer. The point/sequence of
face-jointing first w/ the jointer is to get one flat surface which
becomes the reference. Then need to get the opposite surface flat and
parallel to that one and the jointer isn't the ideal way to do that --
that's the planer's job. Problem w/ the jointer for the second face is
that once you've taken some material off the first face or if it was
rough-sawn material to begin with, the second face isn't parallel to
the first but the cut is referenced only to that surface so, in
general, you end up w/ a second face also flat but not parallel to the
first. It is _extremely_ difficult to manually adjust the amount of
cut in the right place to correct the initial discrepancy unless it is
very large and so typically every pass simply compounds the problem...

Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:25:44
From: SonomaProducts.com
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

I think maybe you want to much from a jointer. If you edge or face a
board over and over on the same side you will start to see the board
get smaller on the tail end or one one edge. It's just the physics of
the system in my opinion.

I think you can rely on a jointer to:

A: Flatten one face of a board. If this takes several passes you will
likely notice that one edge or end is thinner than the other.

B: Straighten one edge by indexing the newly flattened face against the
fence. Now you have one flat face with one edge at exact 90 (if you
have a good setup on the fence).

Now you can use the Planer to flatten the other face relative to the
already flattened face and the TS to straighten the other edge relative
to the straight edge.

Does this sound right?

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine. Let me get to the problem first.
>
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?
>
> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner. I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea. I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees. Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.
>
> Help!

Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:15:08
From: dpb
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

Swingman wrote:
> <clmessina@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > I get
> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>
> ??
>
> Sounds to me like you got that backwards ... indeed, you might want to
> review your technique.

Yep, sounds like the perfect recipe to create a tapered cut...

Date: 14 Nov 2006 12:49:47
From: Swingman
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

<clmessina@hotmail.com > wrote in message

> I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.

??

Sounds to me like you got that backwards ... indeed, you might want to
review your technique.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

Date: 14 Nov 2006 10:31:41
From: else24@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

How long is the board you're working with? For adjustment and checking
purposes I'd start with a board not much longer than the infeed bed,
that was fairly straight to begin with.

Jointing a long, warped board on a benchtop jointer is an art I was
never able to master.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 12:28:29
From: Charlie M. 1958
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine. Let me get to the problem first.
>
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?
>
> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner. I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea. I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees. Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.
>
> Help!
>
If I understand what you're saying, it sounds like the outfeed is not
horizontal in relation to the infeed.

Date: 15 Nov 2006 00:59:15
From: Nova
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:

<snipped >

> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.

If I understand the problem correctly it sounds like your knives are not
parallel to the tables. This article shows one way to check the knives
setting:

http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/knife_adjustment.shtml

> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well.

If you can't raise the infeed table to the same height as the outfeed
table lower the outfeed table to the level of the infeed and reset the
pointer to "0" after the knives are set.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
novasys@verizon.net

Date: 14 Nov 2006 16:14:40
From: dpb
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
...

> So, I have this nice flat surface (C) even though it's less than 90deg
> in relation to B. I should be able to run C against the vertical fence
> and make B = 90. Nope. As I run it, C and B edge closer to 0 as the
> board begins turning into a long board with wedged D side .

Then the fence isn't perpendicular to the table (assuming you've got
the knives parallel to the table).

It is possible for a fence in particular to have warp in it but in that
case you would probably be able to feel some rock and see that the
bottom edge doesn't stay straight and flat as well as the tendency to
create an out of square edge (with respect to the face against the
fence). If it is simply the fence out of square, then if you make one
pass and reverse the piece (assuming you've run it thru the planer to
have the two faces parallel, you should return it back to the previous
condition. If the fence actually were warped, there's little recourse
other than having a machine shop resurface it.

Also, it is necessary to make sure you actually are holding the face
firmly against the fence and not letting the bottom edge control the
cut in order to correct an out of square edge. This is easy to let
happen if you put excessive vertical pressure on the workpiece. If the
fence isn't rigid, it's also possible to cause it to move some by
exerting excess force in the horizontal direction as well.

On a related topic, your comment regarding snipe is indicative of
either an operational or setup problem -- if the knives are properly
set and the downward force is not excessive or in the wrong place,
there should be virtually no discernible snipe. If there is, something
ain't right. The key is to start w/ the infeed table controlling and
then transfer to the outfeed table controlling as the jointed edge
moves to the outfeed. W/ a properly set up jointer, this will achieve
a straight jointed edge with no snipe on either end.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 14:31:09
From: JOE MOHNIKE
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

How is the jointer mounted to the bench?
I have a Crapsmen as well and had the same problems you are haveing, the
only thing that would come out the other end was a broom stick and a poor
one at that.
A friend of mine who was a retired machinest suggested that I remove the
mounting bolts from the outfeed table, which I did and that solved the
problem. According to my friend the bolts were putting a twisting stress on
the jointer, and that it reared its ugly head only when in use. He stated
jointers, lathes etc. should have only a 3 point mounting system as it is
self leveling and that the 3 single mounting point should only be snug only.
I have not had any problems since and get 90 degree surfaces.

Joe
<clmessina@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163527861.458942.243500@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine. Let me get to the problem first.
>
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other. Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg. If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?
>
> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner. I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea. I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees. Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.
>
> Help!
>

Date: 18 Nov 2006 23:38:03
From: Prometheus
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:31:09 -0800, "JOE MOHNIKE" <JMOHNIKE@PSNW.COM >
wrote:

>How is the jointer mounted to the bench?
>I have a Crapsmen as well and had the same problems you are haveing, the
>only thing that would come out the other end was a broom stick and a poor
>one at that.
>A friend of mine who was a retired machinest suggested that I remove the
>mounting bolts from the outfeed table, which I did and that solved the
>problem. According to my friend the bolts were putting a twisting stress on
>the jointer, and that it reared its ugly head only when in use. He stated
>jointers, lathes etc. should have only a 3 point mounting system as it is
>self leveling and that the 3 single mounting point should only be snug only.
>I have not had any problems since and get 90 degree surfaces.

Any chance you can restate this a bit?

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.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 14:24:38
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

Hello helpful woodworkers. I seem to be confusing a few posters so
I'll try to reclarify the board directions. Before I do, let me state
I am not trying to square four sides of a board on a jointer alone. I
realized how difficult that was when I first bought the machine and
fixed the issue by purchasing a decent planer. Also, I have nothing
against gagetry (particularly gauges). I am quite a supporter of
guages for setting machines better than fingers or eyes can.

OK, that said, I'd listed sides A (top), B (right), C (bottom), D
(left), E (front), F (back). I did not list their relationship to the
joiner clearly enough. The board would be fed E (front) from infeed
table to outfeed table with A (top of board) facing up. Side B (the
right side as looking down the planer tables from infeed to outfeed
table) would face the fence and side D (the side of the board opposite
the fence) would face me.

On each successive pass over the joiner Side C gets closer and closer
to side A on the D side but not on the B side. That is, the board acts
as if the fence is angled toward me but the fence is set with a 123
block at 90degrees. Thus in the 2"x4"x4' board demonstration, let's
imagine the board is perfectly square with the length (E to F) being
4', the depth of the board (A to C) being 2" and the width of the board
(B to D) being 4". For simplicity sake, let's say I take 1" off the
board. With my current set up, after I pass the board through the
jointer . E to F (lenght of board) is still = 4', B to D (width) is
still 4", but Side D is now 1" and Side B = 2".

Someone suggested it might be the blade setting but I wanted to know if
it was the blade, tables, table (in or out), or operator. The fence
and tables are set to 90 as measured by a 123 block. I do not know
that the tables are coplanar to eachother.

Again, sorry if this has frustrated anyone and thank you for your help.

Date: 15 Nov 2006 00:00:01
From: John Cochran
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

In article <1163543078.685587.240700@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
<clmessina@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Hello helpful woodworkers. I seem to be confusing a few posters so
>I'll try to reclarify the board directions. Before I do, let me state
>I am not trying to square four sides of a board on a jointer alone. I
>realized how difficult that was when I first bought the machine and
>fixed the issue by purchasing a decent planer. Also, I have nothing
>against gagetry (particularly gauges). I am quite a supporter of
>guages for setting machines better than fingers or eyes can.

SNIP....

If I understand what you're describing, I can see two possible causes.

1. The knives are not even with the outfeed table with the end closest to
the operator being higher than the end closest to the fence.

or

2. The infeed and outfeed tables are not parallel to each other. The
infeed table being lower on the edge closest to the operator and the
higher on the edge closest to the fence.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 17:19:01
From: Chris Friesen
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:

> On each successive pass over the joiner Side C gets closer and closer
> to side A on the D side but not on the B side.

Ah, the problem occurs when you're face jointing. A light dawns.

There is possibly an alignment issue. You need to check that 1) your
knives are aligned with the outfeed table, and 2) your infeed table is
aligned to the outfeed table.

Chris

Date: 14 Nov 2006 16:45:34
From: Swingman
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

<clmessina@hotmail.com > wrote in message

> Again, sorry if this has frustrated anyone and thank you for your help.

Wheeewww ... I don't. From your description and IF I follow what you're
saying:

What you're describing is what would happen if the knives are higher in
relation to the tables on your side (D), and lower on the side closest to
the fence (B).

Whether this is due to a table being warped/twisted, either stationary or
under use, or the knives just need adjusting is hard to tell.

What happens when you swap D and B against the fence and run it through
again, and does it have the effect of canceling out the problem?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

Date: 14 Nov 2006 13:24:24
From: Rod & Betty Jo
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

Date: 14 Nov 2006 21:18:08
From: George
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

<clmessina@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163527861.458942.243500@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I'm close to loosing all patience with my 6 1/8" jointer/planer and
> hoping for some advice. It's a Craftsman bench top model and my
> history with sears woodworking tools leaves me to first suspect the
> machine.

I suspect it's operator. If the knives will "carry" a piece resting on the
outfeed table at either end, and check all three knives, then you need to
adjust them. Don't know if your outfeed table is adjustable or not. Some
aren't. You need them to kiss, not carry more than 1/8" on all three, and
no jazzbo gage is necessary. Your 1,2,3 block will be milled right enough.
If they're high, they'll snipe the trailing edge, if low, the board will hit
the outfeed table. Imagine you've got jackscrews, or at the least, springs
to raise the knives when loosened. If not, time to get some cow magnets and
hold the knives up with them.

Got to be a half-dozen jointer adjust sites out there. I use my book, and
it's the same.

Now remember that you have to watch what you're doing. You really can't
effectively reference a broad face to a narrow one, so sight the broad face
for twist or bow, setting the board over the guard and sliding the guard
aside to take off high spots at each end, or cross-corner. Hand plane will
do it too. Once you've a sighted surface, plane it all, using the blocks
and pressure over the point where the board contacts the outfeed table.

Now go back and reference the broad surface to your 90 degree fence,
sighting the board as before and removing high spots with partial passes.
Often when ripping boards the tension in the wood will cause some bow or
twist, which is why you rip a bit oversize, and plane only after ripping and
facing. Gets you straight stock you don't have to bully into position with
clamps or fasteners.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 13:15:49
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

I read through the revised description. I might be able to figure it
out, but I don't think so. "left", "right", "top", "bottom", etc. are
all relative terms. Your left is my right and if you turn a board to
do something then the top, which was side "A" is not the top any more,
etc. And, there's no way for me to know if side A is a face or an
edge. And, "C and B edge closer to 0 as the board begins turning into
a long board with wedged D side" is a complete mystery to me. Does
this mean that the angle between a face and an edge is becoming larger
or smaller than 90 degrees? Is the board actually growing longer? How
is a side becomming "wedged"? Does this mean that opposite sides are
not parallel? Which way are they not parallel (along their length,
across their width, or both)?

Please use standard terms: face, edge, adjcent, opposite, etc.

More and more I'm beginning to think that you want your jointer to do
the entire task of stock preparation on all four sides of the board.
This just isn't what it was meant for. It is good at making a surface
flat and square in relation to another surface. However, it is not
intended to be used to make two surfaces parallel. Do one face side
and one edge side on the jointer, period. Then finish up the board on
a table saw (the opposite edge) and the planer (opposite face).
Everything will be flat, square, and parallel.

Using dial indicators is not unavoidable. There are plenty of people
who avoid them. Some even insist on avoiding them with religious
fervor!. But, if you expect your machines to do their work properly
and accurately, and you don't like being frustrated, then a dial
indicator is a nice thing to have. It's natural to be a bit
aprehensive about using an unfamiliar tool but dial indicators are low
cost and extremely easy to use. And, after having handled literally
thousands of them, I've never been bitten.

Thanks,
Ed Bennett
ejb@ts-aligner.com

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> Thank you so much for your suggestions and links. As I mentioned to
> dbs, my description of the problem was confusing (sorry).
>
> Thanks everyone for offering help, really. I think I'm simply being
> reluctant to purchase a dial indicator for set-up but I'm starting to
> think that is unavoidable when you own woodworking machines. PS I love
> Lee Valley/Veritas. Too bad every company doesn't work as hard as they
> do to provide value and accuracy.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 13:00:19
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
> (bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
> deg, and they're close to start with. I know that I will have snipe
> affecting E & F based upon where I place my weight as the board passes
> over the knives. My concern isn't so much E&F as C&B. C&B start close
> to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
> is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
> to 0Degrees.
>
> So, I have this nice flat surface (C) even though it's less than 90deg
> in relation to B. I should be able to run C against the vertical fence
> and make B = 90. Nope. As I run it, C and B edge closer to 0 as the
> board begins turning into a long board with wedged D side .

This sounds to me like your fence is not square with the tables. This
would cause each pass jointing an edge to get progressively worse.

Either that or your infeed or outfeed tables are twisted at a funny
angle. I don't even know how that is possible on a jointer, but I guess
it could be the case.

Either way, sounds like the angle between your tables and fence is not
at 90 degrees.

Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:59:25
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

Thank you so much for your suggestions and links. As I mentioned to
dbs, my description of the problem was confusing (sorry).

Thanks everyone for offering help, really. I think I'm simply being
reluctant to purchase a dial indicator for set-up but I'm starting to
think that is unavoidable when you own woodworking machines. PS I love
Lee Valley/Veritas. Too bad every company doesn't work as hard as they
do to provide value and accuracy.

ejb@ts-aligner.com wrote:
> I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
> wrong).
>
> clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> > All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> > produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> > than the other.
>
> It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
> the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
> ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
> edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
> with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
> cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?
>
> > Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> > and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.
>
> Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
> difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
> describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
> If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.
>
> So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
> it is square to a face?
>
> > If
> > I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
>
> Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
> picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
> face".
>
> > Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> > the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> > reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> > feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
>
> Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
> all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
> your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
> table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
> problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
> is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.
>
> First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
> through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
> on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
> page:
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm
>
> There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
> heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
> practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm
>
> You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
> eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
> frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
> that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
> considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
> block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
> with a dial indicator.
>
> > Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> > so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> > feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> > terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> > compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> > everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> > nuts this is making me?
>
> Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
> without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
> (in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
> long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
> a customer):
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg
>
> The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313
>
> > I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> > the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> > this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> > surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.
>
> Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
> using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
> rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
> make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
> jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
> creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
> a face to an edge).
>
> > I get
> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>
> I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.
>
> > I've
> > read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> > from 90 to 0 degrees.
>
> I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
> 90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).
>
> > Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> > until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> > roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> > blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> > this morning and same thing.
>
> Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
> out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.
>
> Ed Bennett
> ejb@ts-aligner.com
> http://www.ts-aligner.com

Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:51:52
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

Sorry dpb, I wrote my description before going to lunch and was simply
fried. After re-reading it I think it's confusing too so I'll start
over.

Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
(bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
deg, and they're close to start with. I know that I will have snipe
affecting E & F based upon where I place my weight as the board passes
over the knives. My concern isn't so much E&F as C&B. C&B start close
to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
to 0Degrees.

So, I have this nice flat surface (C) even though it's less than 90deg
in relation to B. I should be able to run C against the vertical fence
and make B = 90. Nope. As I run it, C and B edge closer to 0 as the
board begins turning into a long board with wedged D side .

Date: 14 Nov 2006 14:49:53
From: Chris Friesen
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:

> Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
> (bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
> deg, and they're close to start with.

> ...C&B start close
> to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
> is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
> to 0Degrees.

Assuming that your fence isn't moving during the operation, it sounds
like a technique problem.

Assuming you've jointed face C, and maybe thickness-planed face E.

To edge-joint B (or D) you should be pressing C (or E, depending on
grain direction) against the fence directly over the cutterhead. If you
do this, and the fence is at 90 degrees to the cutterhead, then the face
and edge will be perpendicular.

Chris

Date: 15 Nov 2006 01:22:39
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

In article <1163533912.548752.239690@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
<clmessina@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>Sorry dpb, I wrote my description before going to lunch and was simply
>fried. After re-reading it I think it's confusing too so I'll start
>over.
>
>Let's say I have a 2"x4"x4' board with sides A (top), B (right), C
>(bottom), D (left), E (front), F (back). I want to get C and D at 90
>deg, and they're close to start with. I know that I will have snipe
>affecting E & F based upon where I place my weight as the board passes
>over the knives. My concern isn't so much E&F as C&B. C&B start close
>to 90deg then gets closer to 0deg with ever pass that C stays where it
>is. C always remains flat but the angle of C in relation to B moves in
>to 0Degrees.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm _more_ confused now!

Are you sure that your jointer fence is set to 90d?

Are you talking about ending up with a board that is tapered in either
width or thickness? If you are using the jointer on opposite faces or
edges you are almost guaranteed to end up with those faces or edges
not parallel.

--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm@charm.net

Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:44:09
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
wrong).

clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> than the other.

It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?

> Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.

Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.

So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
it is square to a face?

> If
> I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.

Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
face".

> Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.

Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.

First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
page:

http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm

There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).

http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm

You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
with a dial indicator.

> Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> nuts this is making me?

Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
(in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
a customer):

http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg

The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313

> I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.

Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
a face to an edge).

> I get
> the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.

I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.

> I've
> read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> from 90 to 0 degrees.

I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).

> Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> this morning and same thing.

Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.

Ed Bennett
ejb@ts-aligner.com
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Date: 14 Nov 2006 22:11:02
From: Bruce Barnett
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

clmessina@hotmail.com writes:

> Thanks everyone for offering help, really. I think I'm simply being
> reluctant to purchase a dial indicator for set-up but I'm starting to
> think that is unavoidable when you own woodworking machines.

There are low cost dial indictors.
Harbor Freight has a set (w/base) that has a sale price of about $15.
Grizzly has one on sale this Christmas for $22.25 (with a molded case).
see http://www.grizzly.com/products/G9849

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Date: 16 Nov 2006 00:07:11
From: Paul D
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

If the knives are not parallel to outfeed table (one side high) there will
be rocking as the board moves to tha outfeed table which you should be able
to feel. A common error for ppl learning to use a jointer is they place
tooooooo much force trying to hold timber down. You don't need to stand on a
board to keep it flat, your main purpose is to guide the board through. A
reasonable gentle touch is all that is required.From the description it
sounds very much like the infeed table is not parallel to outfeed table but
knives are parallel to outfeed. This would cause more to be planed from one
side than the other and increase the amount of error with each successive
pass.

my suggestions would be

1.
Ignore the fence ..... nothing to do with face jointing.
If the fence is not square to table when jointing a edge the angle would
not change with successive passes, it would always remain tha same degree of
error, even after 100 passes.

2.
Check and adjust knives to outfeed table .... both level with and parallel
to outfeed table

3.
Check infeed table for level in relation to outfeed table either by
measurement
or
Let teh machine tell you what is wrong. Run piece through jointer (E end
first, mark on timber so you dont get as confused as we are) ...
measure. If out of parallel feed back through jointer opposite end first
( F end) ... measure. If board now same thickness either side (within
reason) your infeed table is not parallel to outfeed. mmmmmm guess I know
what your doing for the next cpl of hours

you dont need dial indicators ... only implements required to set up jointer
accuratly is a cpl of pieces of timber. Let the machine talk to you and tell
you what the prob is rather than trying to find an interpretor to talk to
the machine

Be at one with the machine and 'feel the force'

<ejb@ts-aligner.com > wrote in message
news:1163533449.454288.295830@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
> wrong).
>
> clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
> > All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
> > produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
> > than the other.
>
> It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
> the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
> ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
> edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
> with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
> cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?
>
> > Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
> > and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.
>
> Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
> difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
> describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
> If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.
>
> So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
> it is square to a face?
>
> > If
> > I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
>
> Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
> picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
> face".
>
> > Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
> > the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
> > reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
> > feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
>
> Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
> all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
> your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
> table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
> problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
> is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.
>
> First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
> through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
> on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
> page:
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm
>
> There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
> heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
> practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm
>
> You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
> eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
> frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
> that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
> considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
> block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
> with a dial indicator.
>
> > Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
> > so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
> > feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
> > terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
> > compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
> > everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
> > nuts this is making me?
>
> Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
> without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
> (in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
> long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
> a customer):
>
> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg
>
> The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313
>
> > I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
> > the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
> > this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
> > surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.
>
> Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
> using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
> rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
> make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
> jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
> creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
> a face to an edge).
>
> > I get
> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>
> I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.
>
> > I've
> > read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
> > from 90 to 0 degrees.
>
> I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
> 90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).
>
> > Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
> > until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
> > roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
> > blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
> > this morning and same thing.
>
> Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
> out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.
>
> Ed Bennett
> ejb@ts-aligner.com
> http://www.ts-aligner.com
>

Date: 15 Nov 2006 09:24:29
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

"Paul D" <JustMe@Somewhere.net > wrote in message
news:455b10db_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> If the knives are not parallel to outfeed table (one side high) there will
> be rocking as the board moves to tha outfeed table which you should be
> able
> to feel. A common error for ppl learning to use a jointer is they place
> tooooooo much force trying to hold timber down. You don't need to stand on
> a
> board to keep it flat, your main purpose is to guide the board through. A
> reasonable gentle touch is all that is required.From the description it
> sounds very much like the infeed table is not parallel to outfeed table
> but
> knives are parallel to outfeed. This would cause more to be planed from
> one
> side than the other and increase the amount of error with each successive
> pass.
>
> my suggestions would be
>
> 1.
> Ignore the fence ..... nothing to do with face jointing.
> If the fence is not square to table when jointing a edge the angle would
> not change with successive passes, it would always remain tha same degree
> of
> error, even after 100 passes.
>
> 2.
> Check and adjust knives to outfeed table .... both level with and parallel
> to outfeed table
>
> 3.
> Check infeed table for level in relation to outfeed table either by
> measurement
> or
> Let teh machine tell you what is wrong. Run piece through jointer (E end
> first, mark on timber so you dont get as confused as we are) ...
> measure. If out of parallel feed back through jointer opposite end
> first
> ( F end) ... measure. If board now same thickness either side (within
> reason) your infeed table is not parallel to outfeed. mmmmmm guess I know
> what your doing for the next cpl of hours
>
> you dont need dial indicators ... only implements required to set up
> jointer
> accuratly is a cpl of pieces of timber. Let the machine talk to you and
> tell
> you what the prob is rather than trying to find an interpretor to talk to
> the machine
>
> Be at one with the machine and 'feel the force'

Flashing on "hey, 3PO, I need you to talk to the jointer and tell me what's
wrong with the infeed table".

> <ejb@ts-aligner.com> wrote in message
> news:1163533449.454288.295830@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I can probably help you out (or at least figure out what's going
>> wrong).
>>
>> clmessina@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > All boards I plane (and I have only worked with 4S softwood pine) will
>> > produce a flat face, but this flat face is always deeper on one end
>> > than the other.
>>
>> It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you are talking about. To me,
>> the "ends" of a board are the shorter width. "End grain" is on the
>> ends of a board. Are you saying that you are jointing a face or an
>> edge of a board and that you are having trouble keeping it parallel
>> with the opposite face/edge? Or, are you saying that the depth of the
>> cut across the width of the board isn't consistent?
>>
>> > Thus, I start with two sides something close to 90deg
>> > and working on edge 1 starts moving the two sides closer to 80deg.
>>
>> Please don't interchange the terms "sides" or "edge". It makes it very
>> difficult to follow what you are describing. Use the term "edge" to
>> describe a narrow side. Use the term "face" to describe a wide side.
>> If the piece being jointed is square, then they are all faces.
>>
>> So, are you saying that you are having trouble jointing an edge so that
>> it is square to a face?
>>
>> > If
>> > I try to correct the problem by on edge two I get even closer to 70deg.
>>
>> Is "edge two" opposite or adjacent to "edge 1"? See, I just can't
>> picture what you are talking about. Use "opposite edge" or "adjacent
>> face".
>>
>> > Obviously one side of the blades/plates/something is lower/higher than
>> > the other but I can't figure it out. My straight edges aren't as
>> > reliable as I'd like so I tried a 1-2-3 block on the out feed with
>> > feeler guages on the infeed to check for differences along the length.
>>
>> Proper jointer alignment starts with making sure that the knives are
>> all at the same level as the outfeed table. It could be that this is
>> your problem, I don't know. Then you want to make sure that the infeed
>> table is parallel to the outfeed table. It could be that this is your
>> problem, I don't know. Finally, you want to make sure that the fence
>> is square with both tables. This could also be your problem.
>>
>> First, I will have to understand your symptoms. Then I can direct you
>> through all the steps needed to check each one of the major alignments
>> on a jointer. You might also find it handy to view the video on this
>> page:
>>
>> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointer.htm
>>
>> There's another video with different voice-over on this page under the
>> heading "Using a flat indicator tip to set jointer knives" (which is a
>> practice which will can lead to the problems that you are suffering).
>>
>> http://www.ts-aligner.com/alignmentmyths.htm
>>
>> You'll notice that I advocate the use of a dial indicator. This
>> eliminates all of the guess work that you are currently finding so
>> frustrating. It doesn't have to be a TS-Aligner Jr. Any indicator jig
>> that can point the dial indicator downward will work. It takes
>> considerable skill to subjectively discern jointer knives using a 123
>> block and some feeler gages. I certainly can't do it as well as I can
>> with a dial indicator.
>>
>> > Might I mention I can't get the infeed to the same level as the outfeed
>> > so this is the only way to check for coplanar tables as well. The
>> > feeler guage didn't seem to show any difference between the two in
>> > terms of height but I don't feel as confident as I might if I could
>> > compare the two on a granite surface out in space to make sure that
>> > everything is truly level to 0.0000000001+- inches. Do you see how
>> > nuts this is making me?
>>
>> Yep. There's another way to do a relative comparison of the two tables
>> without going juts. The two tables don't have to be at the same level
>> (in fact, it's easier if they are not). It does involve the use of a
>> long straight edge and a dial indicator. Here's the setup (photo from
>> a customer):
>>
>> http://www.ts-aligner.com/jointertables.jpg
>>
>> The straight edge being used here is from Lee Valley:
>>
>> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=50074&cat=1,240,45313
>>
>> > I would like to think the problem rests in my technique and I've read
>> > the book on technique. I understand snipe (not a problem with me at
>> > this point), I get the concept of planing an edge, then a face then
>> > surface planing opposite face then finishing edge on the joiner.
>>
>> Hmmm.... Try it this way: Joint a face, then joint an adjcent edge
>> using the jointed face against the fence. Then use your tablesaw to
>> rip the opposite edge parallel. And finally use a surface planer to
>> make the opposite face parallel. It's not generally practical to use a
>> jointer to make two faces or two edges parallel. It's good for
>> creating a flat surface (facing) and for squaring two adjcent faces (or
>> a face to an edge).
>>
>> > I get
>> > the hand over hand, weight transfer from outfeed to infeed idea.
>>
>> I'm sure you mean "infeed to outfeed" here.
>>
>> > I've
>> > read, get and tried it all and still get these boards that close in
>> > from 90 to 0 degrees.
>>
>> I just don't understand what this means. How do boards "close in from
>> 90 to 0 degrees"? 90 degrees is square. 0 degrees is flat (no angle).
>>
>> > Last night I jointed 1 inch off a board, worked
>> > until 1:08AM adjusting the blades (lost the allen wrench between the
>> > roller/infeed, took apart the entire machine, rebuilt it, readjusted
>> > blades), felt confident I was getting a flat face/90deg cut, tried it
>> > this morning and same thing.
>>
>> Go get yourself a low cost dial indicator and I'll help you to figure
>> out exactly what is wrong without any guess work or frustration.
>>
>> Ed Bennett
>> ejb@ts-aligner.com
>> http://www.ts-aligner.com
>>
>
>

Date: 15 Nov 2006 14:13:11
From: George
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

"Paul D" <JustMe@Somewhere.net > wrote in message
news:455b10db_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> my suggestions would be
>
> 1.
> Ignore the fence ..... nothing to do with face jointing.
> If the fence is not square to table when jointing a edge the angle would
> not change with successive passes, it would always remain tha same degree
> of
> error, even after 100 passes.
>

BINGO! Trying to reference a broad face to the edge is a fool's errand.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:58:25
From:
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

Hmmmm.....

I think we're going round and round in circles.

Prometheus wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2006 16:43:17 -0800, ejb@ts-aligner.com wrote:
> While scribing the back to fit the wall may not be cabinet making in
> and of itself, in a smaller operation, it's still the cabinetmaker's
> job, and is a large and visible part of the overall project.

No, it's the installer's job. Sometimes the cabinetmaker plays
"installer" because he doesn't have a dedicated installer. It may be a
very visible part to the customer, and it may be the most complex thing
done on the job site, but it's not a large part of the job. It's one
of the last things to do before bolting the cabinet to the wall.

> And
> having made plenty of "fine" furniture using traditional joinery and
> solid planks, I'd still say that scribing to a rough wall is usually
> harder than any particular internal joint, including hand cut
> dovetails and m&t joints.

I wasn't saying that it was harder or easier than any other part of the
process. I was just saying that scribing to fit a wall isn't
cabinetmaking. In fact, it's not "making" anything. The cabinet is
all made. Scribing is an installation task.

> And while I'd love to agree with you that building a plywood carcass
> and applying factory made doors and drawers is not cabinetmaking, I
> can't.

It's really "cabinet assembly".

> Step back and look at your total argument for a minute- you're
> falling into the same error you've accused others of in this
> particular case.

No, I'm not. And, I think that this is a very revealing point. I'm
saying that a person who pays someone else to do 90% of the
cabinetmaking job (doors and drawers) doesn't deserve credit for doing
the whole job. I recognize that there is room for differing opinions.

If you believe that this is analogous to the indicator vs traditional
methods discussion, then you must feel that 90% of woodworking is
setting up the machines. And, you would have to believe that using a
dial indicator is like paying someone else to do the setup for you
(i.e. "cheating").

> I have limited respect for the cabinetmakers that
> slap together carcasses out of plywood with pocket screws and mount
> other peoples' doors and drawers on them, but that is a matter of
> economics in a lot of shops- it's that same old march of progress that
> you can love or leave, and it applies just as easily to the finished
> woodwork as it does to the shop setup.

Sure. Finished cabinets can be delivered at a very competitive price
if factory made doors and drawers are used. But, those who don't have
the skills and equipment to make doors and drawers can't be regarded as
equals with those that do.

> Making plywood boxes is 99% of the job for most cabinetmakers these
> days. I'm sure that there are plenty that do things the old way, but
> for every one of them, there are twenty (or more) that whack together
> mdf boxes and push them out the door as fast as they can- they're
> still cabinetmakers, because (drumroll....) they make cabinets. You
> can't redefine the term to only include the ones who make the stuff
> you like.

This is not an "old way" vs "new way" thing. The doors and drawers are
still being made by someone - just not the person you refer to as the
"cabinetmaker". This guy isn't applying the skills required to make
doors and drawers. The guy who uses a dial indicator is still doing
his own alignments and setups. He does 100% of the work, applying the
skills required to do the tasks. To say otherwise is to reveal that
you believe he is cheating.

> Is it fine furniture making? I can't even really make that call- I've
> seen some really expensive antiques that anyone would consider "fine
> furniture"- but when you turn them around, the back is made from old
> barn boards nailed into place. Using an engineered substrate is not
> terribly different, provided the joinery is still well-excuted and the
> veneers and finishes are attractive.

There is a very widespread misconception that it has to be old (or made
with old tools and techniques) in order for it to be considered
"craftsmanship". I've seen the same thing you relate here. A lot of
antiques are poorly designed and poorly constructed. There are a few
examples (like the Stradivarius violin) that reflect a level of
craftsmanship which is lost to history. But, they are darn few. The
knowledge, skill, understanding, and technology available today enables
craftsmanship on a level which couldn't even be dreamed of 100 years
ago.

> Well, sure- but that was my point. If you have 20/20 vision, there's
> no need for the glasses.

But, if you have 20/20 vision with glasses (or contacts, or surgery),
then it isn't "cheating", is it? Which one is cheating, the guy who
reads music or the guy who plays by ear? Your analogies really don't
speak to the issue. The glasses thing has to do with physical
disability which can be easily corrected. The music thing has to do
with talent, not skill. I think you are trying to say that various
people have different skills but end up accomplishing the same thing.
And, I think I've said that I agree (several times now!). I have no
argument with this.

If it bothers you to think that it takes skill to properly use a dial
indicator to align machinery, then that's a problem that you will have
to work out on your own. If you are insulted by people who find no use
for "jobsite coping skills" because they have learned other skills
(like how to use a dial indictor) then you are just going to have to
deal with it.

> Here again, you've got this notion that everyone is insisting on trial
> and error, and not acknowledging that an alternate approach may work
> just as well, without being a half-assed way of going about things.

No, I really am arguing with those who are against using dial
indicators. Many of them advocate trial and error methods. Some
advocate other methods. But, the common thread here is that they are
opposed to using dial indicators in the woodshop. I'm not sure why I'm
arguing with you because you say that you are not opposed to using dial
indicators. Yet, you keep turning it around to try and make it look
like I'm attacking those who advocate anything but dial indicators.
Why?

> As an example, on Tuesday I was making a part for myself (a metal
> spinning toolpost for the lathe) that required nine holes (as I had
> drafted it) each centered on the y axis, and equidistant from one
> another and the ends. When I jumped on the mill, I found that someone
> on day shift had dropped a vise on the indicator and smashed it.
>
> Rather than skipping the project until a new indicator arrived, I
> squared the vise by using the edge finder on both sides of the back
> jaw of the vise. There was no "test cutting" involved, and the total
> deviation between the first hole and the last was less than .001" over
> a run of nine inches. It took a few extra minutes, but it did the job
> just the same. Without the indicator- and without trial and error.
> What it did require was the trade skill of using an edge finder to
> determine relative squareness mechanically- just as other trade skills
> can be used to setup machines using things along the lines of a square
> and a set of feeler guages. Hell, I even sharpened the bit I used for
> the drilling freehand- because it took less time than setting up the
> sharpening jig.

That's great. But, you would have used the indicator if it had been
available, right? You wouldn't be against using an indicator to align
a milling vise, right? You wouldn't be advocating the use of an edge
finder over the use of an indicator, right? I'm not challenging people
for being creative or demonstrating ingenuity. I'm challenging people
who try to dissuade others from using dial indicators in the woodshop.

> There was no waste of material in the project, and a minimal waste of
> time that could not be avoided.

Fine, no problem. Congratulations. But, you aren't going to start
abandoning the use of dial indicators in the machine shop are you? You
aren't going to start ridiculing people who use an indicator to align a
milling vise, are you? Are you going to start saying that people who
don't use an edgefinder to align a milling vise have less skill? You
don't suddenly think that using an indicator is "cheating" do you? You
aren't going to start criticizing tool and cutter grinders are you?
People who use them as "cheating" or having less skill? If you answer
"no" to all of these, then I'm not sure why you keep coming back on
this topic.

> Not true, though that may be in the case of the jointer setup thread.
> (I don't own a jointer, and can't make any claims about it one way or
> the other.) I don't have money to waste on wood that isn't going into
> the finished project, so I set up the tools to be right without using
> any test cuts. From what I've read in these various threads, most
> people are doing that as well- just using different tools than you are
> to do so.

OK, fine. Not all of them are advocating methods which waste time or
materials (using a square to set the blade to 90 degrees). But they
are all arguing against the use of a dial indicator. And, they do so
without trying it.

> There's a communication block here, and it's directly centered over
> the use of "trial and error". Perhaps you mean it in a manner other
> than the way in which I keep reading it- what I take you to mean is
> that you're envisioning people just casually tossing their machine
> into a "sort of" alignment, and then making a cut, checking it,
> adjusting a little, making a cut, checking it, ad nauseum.

That's exactly what I mean.

> That's not
> the case- in the case of setting a saw blade to 90*, a square will do
> the job without that, and in the case of a jointer, I would imagine
> that a straightedge would do the job of setting the knife heights
> without test cuts as well.

Sure enough. So, not everyone who has spoken against dial indicators
is advocating trial and error. But, they are still speaking against
the use of dial indicators. And, they aren't willing to listen to
potential benefits (faster, easier, greater accuracy, etc.) or even try
the dial indicator.

> While I have seen one or two sentiments that reflect exactly that
> approach, I have to assume that you are saying that this is what I'm
> advocating, as you replied to the statements I made.

Please do not assume. If I said that you are advocating trial and
error over using dial indicators then please point it out to me. If
you are talking about something other than trial and error when you
describe jobsite coping techniques being used in the workshop then
please be more specific.

> >The argument develops when someone falsely characterizes the use of the
> >dial indicator in an effort to dissuade others from using it. *They*
> >say that people who use dial indicators aren't craftsmen. *They* say
> >it's "the easy road". *They* say that using a dial indicator is
> >"harder", "more trouble", "difficult", "tedious", "time consuming",
> >cheating, etc.
>
> *I* didn't say most of those things- the only thing that I recall
> saying was that purchasing a dial indicator for home use, waiting for
> it to be shipped to my house, and then making a jig to put it on
> involved a lot more time and money than just using the square that is
> already sitting on my saw. If I were to run to a local store to buy
> one, it's far more money than it's worth to me ($38 was the low price
> the last time I was at the hardware store)

Geez, this is really getting convoluted! I didn't specifically say
that you said any of these things. But right now you are arguing with
me for arguing with people who have.

Nobody said that you have to wait for a dial indicator. Nobody said
that you had to spend $38 on one. Nobody even said that you have to
try one - until you started being critical of those who use one. I'll
have no argument with you if you have nothing against dial indicators
and the people who use them in the woodshop.

> But that is neither here nor there- the point I was attempting to
> clarify is that for a guy that already has an adequate technique,
> finding, purchasing, setting up and interpreting the measurements
> returned by unfamiliar tools may well be a lot more time and effort
> than using the old reliable way of doing things. From that guy's
> point of view, it *is* harder, more troublesome, more difficult,
> tedious and time consuming- and in the end, may result in no
> measurable difference from doing it his way to begin with.

Fine, let this guy do it any way he wants. I don't care if it takes
him more time or less time or whatever. I challenge his method only
when he uses it to put down dial indicators and those who use them. In
the case of using a square on the table saw blade, I honestly think
that Stoutman's jig is easier, faster, and more accurate. Geez, it
even costs less than a halfway decent square. In the case of using the
"carry" method on a jointer, I think that using a dial indicator is
easier, faster, and more accurate. Advocates of both methods were
challenged to try using a dial indicator. So far, no takers (well,
there's one who claims he tried it but it's pretty obvious he hasn't).
Quick to criticize, not very quick to back it up.

You keep arguing about some sort of skills which seem to be completely
unrelated. Perhaps you have generalized my arguments against specific
traditional "trial and error" techniques to include anything a person
might learn anywhere that doesn't involve using dial indicators. The
examples you cite certainly seem to fall into this category. I know
that you say they all came from what you learned working on jobsites
(even if the examples don't always seem to line up). I'm sorry that
you feel like my arguments defending the use of dial indicators makes
you feel like I'm putting down the use of these jobsite skills. Like I
said, I see why they are appropriate for the jobsite. But, there are
better ways to do things in the workshop.

> Well, that didn't save the coopering trade, or the thatchers, or the
> blacksmiths, did it? If you've got the superior method, there's no
> real problem with letting the naysayers howl away- this little corner
> of the internet by no means represents even the "average" woodworker-
> most of the regulars here have gone so far beyond the ken of what is
> normally accepted modern tooling and technique that the average
> carpenters and cabinetmakers I've met in real life regard most of the
> things I've learned or discussed here the way they would some obscure
> branch of ancient alchemy.

Hmmmm.... I'll give this a whirl...

First of all, nothing in business happens all by itself. I can't just
sit back and watch my sales grow. There is competition and if I am not
actively working on moving forward then I'm going to be sliding
backward. Yes, better methods eventually overtake inferior ones. But,
that doesn't mean that my business will automatically be successful.
The automobile eventually replaced all of the horse drawn carriages.
But, not all of the early automobile manufacturers are still in
business.

The wreck itself doesn't represent very much when it comes to actual
sales. But, it does represent a market that I have targeted. Yes, I
know that it is very different from what you know of jobsite
woodworkers and cabinetmakers. These are hobbyists. If you read the
hobbyist magazines you will understand them much better. The feedback
I get from the group is valuable to me. People here react the same way
that other hobbyists react when the see or hear about using dial
indicators for woodworking. The big difference is that they are
extremely vocal here. They don't care about insulting me, they just
say what they think. There's a unique dynamic here. I argue with them
to draw out their true motives. When I understand why they feel
compelled to dissuade others from using dial indicators I can develop
better approaches to reach those who haven't yet made up their minds.
I can address objections that will likely come to them when they ask
friends about my products (or when the topic comes up in discussion
groups). So, I will have prepared them in advance.

I could do this anonymously. And, I could do this without making any
contribution (sharing expertise and offering the annual special). But,
that's just not my style.

If you have trouble understanding this then please just let it drop.
I'm not going to sit here and argue marketing strategy in the NG.

> Granted- though I was referring more the the fact that I do not recall
> ever seeing Mr. Lee actively putting down potential customers. He
> could easily be jumping in on these threads and spouting off about how
> a Veritas plane is better than an electric jointer, but he doesn't.
> He just sells stuff that is hard to find elsewhere- as you do.

Well, as I tried to relate, Rob and I aren't the same person. We don't
operate the same business. If he wants to do market research, he tells
his Marketing department to go spend a bunch of money with a market
research firm. And, there's nobody out there trying to dissuade others
from buying Veritas products. There is no group of people who feel
offended every time someone mentions a Veritas product. One of the
quotes I provided did show how Rob addressed a person who said a
particular product was overpriced and unnecessary. This is just about
as close as it gets but its still not the same thing. There are people
who have a philosophical opposition to everything my business stands
for. Nobody has a philosophical opposition to Lee Valley.

> There is a fine qualitative difference between the behavior of Mr. Lee
> and yours. I'm not trying to put you down- I was just making an
> example of his superb aplomb when dealing with issues.

Yes, of course there's a difference. We are different people in
different situations doing different things. I really can't afford to
be like Rob in my situation. Give me a million dollars and then I
could probably afford to be a lot more like Rob.

> I saw nothing
> in the posts you linked to that compare to the issue at hand, though
> everyone reads different things into the subtext. With one exception,
> I've never seen a post from the guy that led to a flamewar- and the
> other party in that case was really frothing to begin with.

I think it's safe to assume that Rob is here mainly to develop and
maintain a reputation for customer satisfaction. If this is true, then
his goals and objectives are much better served using an approach which
is very different from mine.

> Nor am I saying that you are poorly behaved or boorish- you're
> obviously an honest guy that is passionate about what he's doing. All
> I'm getting at, 110% of it, is that you are either intentially or
> unintentionally insulting some people in these discussions.

Yep, some people do get insulted. Not because I'm looking to insult
them. I don't engage them until they express their opposition. Then I
really want to know how they react when confronted with the facts and
logic of their own thinking. I want to know what motivates them to
actively oppose the use of dial indicators in the woodshop. I really
do not understand what compells them to be so strongly opposed my
products. In the process of finding out, they become insulted. Why?
Because more often than not their opposition is emotional, not logical.
And, when confronted by logic it looks pretty stupid.

> plenty of ways to avoid that while saying exactly the same thing. If
> you can keep peoples' hackles down, they're a whole lot more likely to
> seriously explore what you're advocating.

Nope. Not possible. You can't explore the opposition or expose the
motives of blind pride without insult. The only way to avoid insult is
for the person to abandon their pride and look at the situation
objectively. That's a problem when the person can't even see their
pride. Just let me know when you are ready to start talking about
aligning and adjusting woodworking machinery (as opposed to all the
perceived insults).

> Ahhhh... And how does one *build* a multi-million dollar empire? Or
> maintain it?
>
> While I'd like to think it's solely quality product and fair prices,
> there's a fair amount of diplomacy involved as well.

It's a topic that goes way beyond this discussion or even the group.
Everyone I meet has platitudes about building a successful business.
You are right, having the best products or the best prices won't do it.
"Diplomacy" is important but it won't do it either. I can name a big
pile of extremely successful businesses that were built by people who
are pretty darn blunt. There is no simple trite formula. People
always look at a successful business and try to identify a particular
quality which is responsible. It's a lot more complicated than you
think. One thing is for sure - you can do everything exactly right but
if you don't have significant financial resources then the going is
incredibly rough.

Ed Bennett
ejb@ts-aligner.com
http://www.ts-aligner.com

Date: 27 Nov 2006 00:21:53
From: Prometheus
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

On 26 Nov 2006 15:58:25 -0800, ejb@ts-aligner.com wrote:

>Hmmmm.....
>
>I think we're going round and round in circles.

Agreed.

>> Step back and look at your total argument for a minute- you're
>> falling into the same error you've accused others of in this
>> particular case.
>
>No, I'm not. And, I think that this is a very revealing point. I'm
>saying that a person who pays someone else to do 90% of the
>cabinetmaking job (doors and drawers) doesn't deserve credit for doing
>the whole job. I recognize that there is room for differing opinions.

Revealing what? It's a job title- and if you go and apply for that
job, most places will set you to making carcasses and then mounting
third-party doors and drawers. I don't think they deserve "credit"
for that either- but they're not doing it for prestige, they're doing
it for money.

>If you believe that this is analogous to the indicator vs traditional
>methods discussion, then you must feel that 90% of woodworking is
>setting up the machines. And, you would have to believe that using a
>dial indicator is like paying someone else to do the setup for you
>(i.e. "cheating").

Not at all. This is exactly why I keep arguing with you. I already
said the damn indicator was a fine way to do it- you're the one who
has jumped into four or five unrelated threads, and started going off
about the half-assed methods of all us slack-jawed yokels who think
using anything that measures with less precision than a thousandth to
measure something is ok. I have not -ever- said that using an
indicator is cheating- why do you keep claiming I have?

>This is not an "old way" vs "new way" thing. The doors and drawers are
>still being made by someone - just not the person you refer to as the
>"cabinetmaker". This guy isn't applying the skills required to make
>doors and drawers. The guy who uses a dial indicator is still doing
>his own alignments and setups. He does 100% of the work, applying the
>skills required to do the tasks. To say otherwise is to reveal that
>you believe he is cheating.

Yes, it *is* an "old way" vs "new way" thing. It's a product of
specialization that occurs as civilization advances- those guys that
make door fronts and drawers only make door fronts and drawers, and
they get very good at doing it well for a low price point. They're
not cabinetmakers, either- the guy that makes the carcasses has
claimed the job title. Just because you (and I, truth be told) would
prefer that it only referred to a guy that runs a full-service shop,
that doesn't make it so.

>If it bothers you to think that it takes skill to properly use a dial
>indicator to align machinery, then that's a problem that you will have
>to work out on your own. If you are insulted by people who find no use
>for "jobsite coping skills" because they have learned other skills
>(like how to use a dial indictor) then you are just going to have to
>deal with it.

Ed, I am not insulted by people doing things any way they like- I am
insulted by you putting words in my mouth and concepts in my head that
were never there to begin with.

Point of fact on this particular score- in my last post, I indicated
that a guy who is accustomed to one method may not have the skill to
properly use a dial indicator, and might just find it frustrating. I
have no idea how that became me being "bothered" by the idea of using
precision measurement tools being a skill. Most places want you to
have a degree before you're even allowed to touch those tools.

But this argument has not been about the use of indicators for a while
now, it's been about you jumping people and telling them what they
think, when it's apparent that you're (perhaps intentionally)
misreading the situation to make a point.

>No, I really am arguing with those who are against using dial
>indicators. Many of them advocate trial and error methods. Some
>advocate other methods. But, the common thread here is that they are
>opposed to using dial indicators in the woodshop. I'm not sure why I'm
>arguing with you because you say that you are not opposed to using dial
>indicators. Yet, you keep turning it around to try and make it look
>like I'm attacking those who advocate anything but dial indicators.
>Why?

Because from what I've seen over the past few weeks, you are. You
keep repeating a few terms as though they were dirty words, and
applying them with a brush that is far too wide. If someone advocates
anything *but* a dial indicator where you would use one, they become a
an advocate of "Trial and error". If anyone disagrees with that for
any reason whatsoever, they're "ignorant", and think that those that
do use them are "cheating". Whether they use those words or not, and
even if they're not expressing anything of the sort, you keep pulling
out the old tried and true to polarize the argument.

Nowhere, at any time, or in any post, in my entire life, have I
advocated guessing at a setting for anything. I won't even cook a
frozen pizza without a specific temperature and cooking time firmly in
mind, much less slap a tool into a random position and start cutting
away. I'd be willing to bet that a few of the guys you've applied
your labels to are the same.

>That's great. But, you would have used the indicator if it had been
>available, right? You wouldn't be against using an indicator to align
>a milling vise, right? You wouldn't be advocating the use of an edge
>finder over the use of an indicator, right? I'm not challenging people
>for being creative or demonstrating ingenuity. I'm challenging people
>who try to dissuade others from using dial indicators in the woodshop.

Sure, using the indicator is the normal technique. The point was that
there is more than one way to skin a cat. If your way works, that's
great, but it doesn't make the other ways inadequate.

>If you answer
>"no" to all of these, then I'm not sure why you keep coming back on
>this topic.

See above- you're verbally attacking people with little or no
provocation. I thought perhaps you didn't realize you were doing it,
and the words were just coming out wrong, but now it seems to me like
you do in fact know what you're up to. Hope that works out for you-
and it might (more than one way to skin a cat, and all.)

>OK, fine. Not all of them are advocating methods which waste time or
>materials (using a square to set the blade to 90 degrees). But they
>are all arguing against the use of a dial indicator. And, they do so
>without trying it.

Not true. They are explaining alternate methods, and you're taking it
as an attack on yours. Then you insult them, and they insult you
back. Getting a good flame war going doesn't help the case for
precision measurement (if anything was less related to emotion, I'd be
hard pressed to name it), unless you're of the "any publicity is good
publicity" school of thought.

>Sure enough. So, not everyone who has spoken against dial indicators
>is advocating trial and error. But, they are still speaking against
>the use of dial indicators. And, they aren't willing to listen to
>potential benefits (faster, easier, greater accuracy, etc.) or even try
>the dial indicator.

A person is a lot more likely to listen if they aren't insulted right
off the bat.

>Please do not assume. If I said that you are advocating trial and
>error over using dial indicators then please point it out to me. If
>you are talking about something other than trial and error when you
>describe jobsite coping techniques being used in the workshop then
>please be more specific.

If this is really necessary, I'll run back through the history and
post quotes- but I don't think that is going to make much difference
one way or the other, and this has gone on too long already.

>Geez, this is really getting convoluted! I didn't specifically say
>that you said any of these things. But right now you are arguing with
>me for arguing with people who have.

Yep. To clarify that even further, I am arguing with you about the
manner in which you are arguing with those who disagree with you.
Shouting and mudslinging may get you heard, but they don't make you
right.

That's not to say that you're not right- there's certainly a good
argument for everything you're advocating, and you've made the case
for it. Now stop hitting people in the head about it.

>Nobody said that you have to wait for a dial indicator. Nobody said
>that you had to spend $38 on one. Nobody even said that you have to
>try one - until you started being critical of those who use one. I'll
>have no argument with you if you have nothing against dial indicators
>and the people who use them in the woodshop.

For the millionth (or so it seems) time, I don't. The difference
between you and I is that I don't think the other methods are
worthless. I know you've *said* you don't think they are- but then
immediately go on to insult those who use them, and claim that they
are wasteful of both time and materials. It keeps happening, and the
only conclusion I can draw from it is that you really think they're
inadequate.

The whole start to this spat was because I didn't completely
understand that Stoutman was calibrating his jig each time he used it,
and was leery of the idea that a couple of bent finish nails pounded
into a block of wood were up to snuff as "precision" stops. Once I
figured out that the thing was intended to be recalibrated using the
jointer fence before each use, I actually came around to the idea- not
enough to run out and make one, but enough to see the value of it.

But by that time, you had worked very hard at painting me as an idiot
and a rube (and did a pretty good job of it, at that- the only thing
that didn't support you was actual reality, which we can't see over
Usenet), along with anyone else who didn't immediately agree that the
thing was the best thing since sliced bread- and I think it's a rotten
way to act towards people. Believe it or not, I was trying to help
your argument by trying to convince you to cast it in a more positive
light- though at this point, I don't know that I care anymore.

>You keep arguing about some sort of skills which seem to be completely
>unrelated. Perhaps you have generalized my arguments against specific
>traditional "trial and error" techniques to include anything a person
>might learn anywhere that doesn't involve using dial indicators. The
>examples you cite certainly seem to fall into this category. I know
>that you say they all came from what you learned working on jobsites
>(even if the examples don't always seem to line up). I'm sorry that
>you feel like my arguments defending the use of dial indicators makes
>you feel like I'm putting down the use of these jobsite skills. Like I
>said, I see why they are appropriate for the jobsite. But, there are
>better ways to do things in the workshop.

Things aren't lining up for you because they're metaphors. I figured
talking about something like perfect pitch would help take some of the
loaded words out of the argument, but it didn't. With the specifics,
I said I felt like a good square and a set of feeler gauges was
adequate to set a blade, and that I didn't have enough info to say
anything about the jointer blades. I did support the dial indicator
for setting planer blades, and intend to dedicate a couple to that
purpose.

I could go out and buy a Ferrari to drive to work every day- it
certainly a fine piece of machinery, and much better than my low-end
Ford, but there's no real need for it- especially if I'm obeying the
speed limits. But if I was going to participate in a race, there'd be
a real solid case for the Ferrari. See the metaphor?

>The wreck itself doesn't represent very much when it comes to actual
>sales. But, it does represent a market that I have targeted. Yes, I
>know that it is very different from what you know of jobsite
>woodworkers and cabinetmakers. These are hobbyists. If you read the
>hobbyist magazines you will understand them much better.

Boy, is that a high-handed and rotten thing to say. You figure I've
spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of my life in the pursuit
of becoming a better craftsman, and never went to the effort of
reading a magazine about it?

>If you have trouble understanding this then please just let it drop.
>I'm not going to sit here and argue marketing strategy in the NG.

No, I understand it. If you look above, this is what I'm getting at-
you slapped me in the face, and only then proceded to a logical
argument.

>> There is a fine qualitative difference between the behavior of Mr. Lee
>> and yours. I'm not trying to put you down- I was just making an
>> example of his superb aplomb when dealing with issues.
>
>Yes, of course there's a difference. We are different people in
>different situations doing different things. I really can't afford to
>be like Rob in my situation. Give me a million dollars and then I
>could probably afford to be a lot more like Rob.

You don't make a million dollars in the first place by offending
potential customers and telling them they don't matter. I probably
would have bought a TS-aligner had you stayed more positive about it,
but this debate has cost you one sale for sure (mine), at least for
the time being.

>Yep, some people do get insulted. Not because I'm looking to insult
>them. I don't engage them until they express their opposition. Then I
>really want to know how they react when confronted with the facts and
>logic of their own thinking. I want to know what motivates them to
>actively oppose the use of dial indicators in the woodshop. I really
>do not understand what compells them to be so strongly opposed my
>products. In the process of finding out, they become insulted. Why?
>Because more often than not their opposition is emotional, not logical.
> And, when confronted by logic it looks pretty stupid.

You're getting skewed data. I keep trying to explain why that may be
the case, but maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before, and is bound to
happen again.

When you're wondering why people are opposing you, there's a piece of
advice I got once that made a lot of sense-

"If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got."

>> plenty of ways to avoid that while saying exactly the same thing. If
>> you can keep peoples' hackles down, they're a whole lot more likely to
>> seriously explore what you're advocating.
>
>Nope. Not possible. You can't explore the opposition or expose the
>motives of blind pride without insult. The only way to avoid insult is
>for the person to abandon their pride and look at the situation
>objectively. That's a problem when the person can't even see their
>pride.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Think there might be
just a little bit of the old stiff-neck on your side of things as
well?

>Just let me know when you are ready to start talking about
>aligning and adjusting woodworking machinery (as opposed to all the
>perceived insults).

Oh, I don't mind talking about aligning and adjusting woodworking
machinery with you- I'm just trying to keep it seperate from this. I
do appreciate the link you gave me with the jig for setting planer
knives, and I'll admit I've learned a thing or two from these threads.

On the whole, I really don't mind talking with you, and I'm not really
that personally insulted- I know who I am and what I'm capable of
doing, and an argument on the internet won't change any of that. I'll
freely admit that there are far more things I don't know than there
are things I do know for sure, and always appreciate a fresh look at
things. I do like to keep things straight, though- plausible bullshit
hurts us all, and I'm sure you can agree with that.

Let's be honest for a moment- you don't really *need* a $200 router to
make a sign with your house number on it, or a japanese chisel that
has been sharpened to an edge a straight-razor would be jealous of to
clean up a mortise. You don't have to have a Unisaw with a table that
is within .001 of total flatness to rip some boards to make a
doghouse, and you don't have to have a Oneway lathe to turn a stair
spindle. Most folks already know that- but some of the new guys
don't, and there's no call to scare people away from the hobby by
making every project into a potential museum exhibit milled to a
degree of precision that might make NASA jealous. All those things
can lead to a degree of satisfaction, and can be really fun in their
own right, but sometimes you just have to grab some cheap Harbor
Frieght tools and make a pukey duck- because that's part of the hobby,
too.

To tell you the truth, I'd like to see your argument for precision
measurement get a little more of a foothold- there's plenty of room
for it in the trade. But I'm not going to just jump on your bandwagon
if it means that anyone who doesn't go for it is to be the subject of
a smear campaign. There are plenty of reasons for a guy *not* using
your pet techniques, and I tried to suggest some of them. There are
plenty of reason for a guy *to* use them as well, and I've attemped to
acknowledge them as well.

That's about all I can do, really.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 01:09:35
From: Andrew Barss
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

ejb@ts-aligner.com wrote:

: There is a very widespread misconception that it has to be old (or made
: with old tools and techniques) in order for it to be considered
: "craftsmanship". I've seen the same thing you relate here. A lot of
: antiques are poorly designed and poorly constructed.

Not only are a lot of surviving antiques poorly made,
consider the large number of pieces made in the past that
didn't survive -- often due to shoddy construction. I'd
venture a guess that most furniture made in the olden days was
of not very high quality. What we see is what managed to last, due to
decent craftsmanship and/or design.

There are a few
: examples (like the Stradivarius violin) that reflect a level of
: craftsmanship which is lost to history. But, they are darn few. The
: knowledge, skill, understanding, and technology available today enables
: craftsmanship on a level which couldn't even be dreamed of 100 years
: ago.

Absolutely true.

-- Andy Barss

Date: 27 Nov 2006 03:33:10
From: Doug Miller
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

In article <ekddsf$m15$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu >, Andrew Barss <barss@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:

>Not only are a lot of surviving antiques poorly made,
>consider the large number of pieces made in the past that
>didn't survive -- often due to shoddy construction. I'd
>venture a guess that most furniture made in the olden days was
>of not very high quality. What we see is what managed to last, due to
>decent craftsmanship and/or design.

The same principle applies to music as well -- the main reason, I believe,
that much classical music is so far superior to most modern music is that only
the good stuff survived long enough to become "classical". There was probably
just as much crap being composed in Beethoven's day as there is now... but
nobody remembers crap that's a couple centuries old, whereas the crap that's
only a couple of years old is still played daily on the radio. :-(

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 20:21:16
From: Tom Watson
Subject: Re: Jointer Trouble

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:09:35 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<barss@mint.u.arizona.edu > wrote:

>ejb@ts-aligner.com wrote:
>
>
>: There is a very widespread misconception that it has to be old (or made
>: with old tools and techniques) in order for i