Shopsmith Forums

JPG wrote:± 1/32"???

Bosch says accuracy is ± 1/16" ?????

I would have expected something better.

That’s over a range of 165 ft. So the max error is only 0.003% of full range, which is pretty darned good in my book. Very likely better than a tape measure of that length.

https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/boscht ... 0-35087-p/

But I think Dusty would need a different device to get useful saw-blade runout measurements.

BuckeyeDennis wrote:

JPG wrote:± 1/32"???

Bosch says accuracy is ± 1/16" ?????

I would have expected something better.

That’s over a range of 165 ft. So the max error is only 0.003% of full range, which is pretty darned good in my book. Very likely better than a tape measure of that length.

https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/boscht ... 0-35087-p/

But I think Dusty would need a different device to get useful saw-blade runout measurements.

Absolutely agree. I was "playing" with a new tool. I bought the Bosch tool to make structure measurements like overall length of an outside wall or distance from a wall to the fence line.

Dusty's is a GLM 42 so the max range is 135 ft.

I am curious if it detected the difference between the distance to the carbide tips vs the tooth base metal. I doubt it can.

JPG wrote:Dusty's is a GLM 42 so the max range is 135 ft.

I am curious if it detected the difference between the distance to the carbide tips vs the tooth base metal. I doubt it can.

I don't know that this proves anything as I was not seeking proof but was simply playing with a new toy but...

this was done just for those who doubt:

Sorry about the poor quality photographs. Could have done better.

Off hand I see thee proved my doubt.

I assume the table was moved up/down.

Nor do I see the carbide targeted.

Enough of this.

BTW it IS a nice tool!!!

JPG wrote:Off hand I see thee proved my doubt.

I assume the table was moved up/down.

Nor do I see the carbide targeted.

Enough of this.

BTW it IS a nice tool!!!

And you won't. I thought I had targeted the carbide (first shot) and I went back to get some better pictures to show that. I am unable to target just the carbide and get an accurate reading. The laser beam is too wide and the tool gets confused trying to give a reading.

There probably is a laser tool that would do this but not within my tool budget.

I think using the Bosch would be a quick way to verify the calibration. Assuming that the initial calibration is as accurate as possible. I am a beginner woodworker and have just ordered a Mark 7. I am looking forward to getting the alignment as accurate as possible. After that I will post if the Bosch laser thing is a good way to keep track of alignments.

billdvorak wrote:I think using the Bosch would be a quick way to verify the calibration. Assuming that the initial calibration is as accurate as possible. I am a beginner woodworker and have just ordered a Mark 7. I am looking forward to getting the alignment as accurate as possible. After that I will post if the Bosch laser thing is a good way to keep track of alignments.

I do not think the Bosch has fine enough resolution to be effective in aligning/verifying.

I think the SS tool kit method is better than the Bosch is capable of.

We keep having these discussions but seldom does anyone declare what "satisfactory precision" really is. How accurate is "accurate"?

If you are going to use the SS Tool Kit Method (without adding in a set of feeler gauges), just how accurate will the measurements be. Then there is repeatability (especially with this method). It is a touch and feel measurement.

dusty wrote:We keep having these discussions but seldom does anyone declare what "satisfactory precision" really is. How accurate is "accurate"?

If you are going to use the SS Tool Kit Method (without adding in a set of feeler gauges), just how accurate will the measurements be. Then there is repeatability (especially with this method). It is a touch and feel measurement.

Yes it is not 'quantified' as would feeler gauges or dial gauges would be.

However touch and feel is, IMO, good enough since that is what will reveal any error in the end product(the work pieces).

IIRC it has been determined that touch can detect 0.001".

In any event I consider it good enough even though there are ways of contaminating the procedure.

I think the reason for for these 'discussions' is that some are over enthusiastic over gadgetry that will lead to quantifiable(figure of merit?) results.