On 10/17/2010 9:05 PM, jim ialeggio wrote: > Ok...thats how I run almost all my sash rabbets or molded profiles which > include rabbets...Only I only climb cut with a 1-1/4 inch arbor and > power fed stock. I guess you can get away with it since the cut is so > minimal. Does the cutter tend to pull you into the cut? It would, without the shock absorber. I installed a "slam suppressor", typically used to soft close cedar chest lids and such, as a feed control. That, and the compound leverage of the handle makes it controllable. >With a 1/2" > arbor I would normally not climb cut, but with 2 pillow blocks and the > cutter being so close to the outboard pillowblock I guess thats why you > get away with it. Yes, that's adequately overbuilt to be workable. > By the way, what is that cool-looks-like-double-cylinder-hydraulic-lift > thing that clamps the bridge. I went web searching but could not find > any thing that resembled that...what do you call it, or did it fall off > the back of a truck...<G> Just a couple of pneumatic rams, Wookie rigged together with a bell crank arrangement to steer the force from horizontal to vertical (which is essentially what bell cranks do for a living). Similar rams are available new, at quite reasonable prices, but these were salvaged 20 years or more ago from old junked data processing equipment (think cards, batch processing). A lot of the design of this thing was conceived around what was in the scrap (inventory) heap at the time. I have less than $120 total in the thing, and a whole bunch of time that was both entertaining and intensely educational. Were I to start over, it would cost considerably more, take considerably less time, and some details would differ. It would likely look less like a trailer park Hobbit construction too, but wouldn't work significantly better enough to be worth the time and cash. I've been asked by a couple of folks if I'd build them one, but neither of us could afford the liability insurance that would require. This, incidentally, is subject to revision with an appropriate R&D grant and ironclad waiver. > The rule is, never design in hardware. > > Absolutely. Actually since I started using autocad, I go from the > envelope, to trial mockup, then build it on the screen. That way I > really know the item in 3d before I hit the shop or buy anything. There > are way fewer ugly suprises or ,even worse, check-mates 1 step before I > was supposed to be finished. Way fewer, sure, but there's the "Gee, I bet this would work better" revelation(s) en route. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I've ever built anything exactly as it was initially conceived and planned. I always seem to obsolete it during the creation process with not always minor design detail revisions. Then I end up using the cobbled up beta version for the duration. This is after the numerous preemptive loops through the scissor, paper, brain cell bath. Both fortunately, and tragically, ugly tools can still work fine. > I'll let you know if it works. Please. All versions... Also, phalanges are our friends. We must endeavor to keep them both close, and attached. High 4+. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC