Have you ever tested the five step proces on your table saw,To Check your 90° Mitre?

[Matt Mattingley]

The five-step process is you take a cut using mitre or sled
Each cut references to the mitre or fence or sled.

The fifth the cut should have a small drop off that can be measured Tip to toe and should be completely parallel using A vernier.

[Mike Kees]

Matt I have done this. I used a piece of plywood. Mark each edge 1,2,3,4 . Cut Edge #1 and rotate counterclockwise, cut edge 2,Rotate. Keep going until you have cut all four edges. Then you mark the front edge of side #1 and slice off a piece about 1/2'' wide. Take this piece and cut it in two. At this point lay the two pieces cut from the strip on edge and compare the marked front piece (start of your cut) with the back piece (end of fifth cut). The principle is that the cumulative error will show up as a difference in the thicknesses. It does. It can be very frustrating with how small of a movement it takes to adjust a fence bang on from this measurement. I have used this to adjust the fence on the wagon of two sliding table saws,the first one took twelve tries. Take very light cuts on your scrap piece of plywood ! There are several videos on Youtube showing this process. Good luck ,Mike.

[Cary Falk]

I have tried it in the past. I feel it brings out the dark side of me as I try to get both sides of the cutoff equal. The amount you are off is magnified by 4 so you have to do some math. Now I just make one cut, verify with a Woodpecker square, and call it a day.:D

[Mike Cutler]

William Ng, has a good video for the five step method for those that are unfamiliar with what the OP is referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbG-n--LFgQ

I have a Mast-R-Slide on my table saw, and I reset it with a Lamb Tool's square. I haven't used a cross sled in many years. I do still have one though.

[Steve Demuth]

The method surely works, but it's a lot more cutting than is needed. First, if you've got a good square- a Starrett combination square or equally accurate machined square - you can adjust a miter gauge or sled to within a fraction of a second of square using that to reference off the blade. Then take a piece of good plywood or machined hardwood that is 6" or so wide and 18-24" long, with the long edges dead-on parallel (easy, since you've got a table saw) and 1) saw it in half in through the short dimension using your sled; 2) with the the halves aligned on a straight edge as they were cut, flip the right one so the side previously on the straightedge is away from and parallel to it, and the opposite side is on the straightedge; 3) butt the sawn edges from your halving cuts together. Those edges should fit absolutely tight, and generally will if you were careful in the very first step with the square. If not, a very tiny adjustment in the gauge of sled is called for. The adjustment will be the same as gap you see over a 12" throw of your gauge or sled.

It takes less time do this (the test) than I took to write it on this infernal iPad. The adjustment, if required, can be a pain. The last time I had a gap, it was barely more than .001" by feeler gauge. I went back to the square for realignment, rather than trying to gauge a thousandth movement In the fence.

[Joe Calhoon]

The five cut method works especially with a large sheet. I have the Lamb square and find it easier. Especially for smaller strokes and double miters. Its really good for squaring the sliding shaper table and the tenoner also.
391304
391305

[Martin Wasner]

I've never done it on a tablesaw, but I've done it on our panel saw.

[Warren Lake]

joe are you measuring square that way, you have your slider travel to blade offset if you are using any. Do you set your slider parrallel to the blade first or toe a hair then check you square. They affect each other I think. I had drag on the heal of the blade so had to pull the track out which threw me out of square more. ILl have to do adjustments in the bearing system which is fiddly on the one bar thing then two blocks three bearings in each. Its crude in a few ways

I did the five out its out, also used the Mititoyou square I have its 1/4" thick expensive but had a hard life not sure I trust it 100 percent. It fits perfect between the teeth. I changed out a good quality 12" blade for a 14" plate is thicker and very true compared to the 12 I did pick.

[glenn bradley]

I use the 5 cut method to confirm or initially set all my sleds and miter slot riding jigs or gauges. Quick and easy.

[Matthew Hills]

I did this when making my crosscut sled.
I've gotten a lot of value out of making this well.


Matt

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I used it when making my crosscut sled.

[Simon MacGowen]

Have not used the 5 cuts to test my tablesaw, and I just use a combo square or drafting triangle to verify all my cutting settings. Haven't seen any negative effects on my work whether they are miter or square cuts. I think Ng's method is sound, but in practice when we work with wood, it really does not matter when we are not dead straight or square or miter to 0.0001" etc. Your machine may get you perfect cuts, but you other skills (assembly for instance) may throw you off.

Simon

[Martin Wasner]

Cumulative errors never seem to cancel each other out though. Murphy's Law.

I forget what the Striebig got dialed into for error, but it was obnoxiously small on a 40" cut.

The 5 sided cut is good because it multiplies the error. So if it's .0025 on a 40" cut, it's really a .000625 error on a 40" cut. (I think it multiplies it by 4?) Or, essentially nothing. We ain't building anything that's getting shot into space.

[Mark Hennebury]

I usually use some very simple checks and references. To check small crosscuts i simple cut in half a squared stick. and stand it on end on a flat surface, then push them close together.
Two fence faces together, they will fit.
one fence face and one opposite face will show any error.
For example, a 4" x 4" x 40" stick cut in half and stood on end will multiply the error tenfold..
You can use this to check square in both planes with only one cut.
Just have to mark reference face and edge and cut surfaces.
Simple fast and accurate and cheap.

391310

[Jim Becker]

The 5-cut method is pretty much a standard method that those of us with sliders use to insure our crosscutting fence(s) are properly square to the blade. Just remember, you're shooting for half the deviance when you are making adjustments.

[Mike King]

A much more precise and quicker way.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidpbest/9575668788/in/album-72157635197231922/

[Joe Calhoon]

joe are you measuring square that way, you have your slider travel to blade offset if you are using any. Do you set your slider parrallel to the blade first or toe a hair then check you square. They affect each other I think.

Hi Warren,
the Martin has so little toe out I don’t think I have anything that would measure it so I don’t worry much about it affecting the square.

[Ray Newman]

Mike King: many thanks for the link!

[Mike Kees]

Mike I will give you the quicker part. The precise would of course depend on the quality and tolerance the square is machined to as well as holding it in place exactly. The five cut is real precise when you want a machine absolutely dead nuts square.

[Matt Mattingley]

Mike I will give you the quicker part. The precise would of course depend on the quality and tolerance the square is machined to as well as holding it in place exactly. The five cut is real precise when you want a machine absolutely dead nuts square.

You guys are both right. A good Long machinist square and a good accurate test machinist indicator (not plunge indicator made by fowler) like Starret, Brown & Sharpe, Verdict or Interapid. But every machinist knows how to certify the quality and accuracy of their own square and indicator by using cylindrical squares, serface tables, gauge blocks... Sure, Having all this machinist tools would be really nice, but they would come at a price that more than $10,000. I like to ask people sometimes how square is your square and can you show me how you check it? Don’t get me wrong, I am an indicator happy guy. But a half decent vernier and a set a feeler gauges will never hurt a woodworkers pocketbook to much.

The reason I brought this up is, this is about the second time I’ve use the five Process. I making adjustable mitre checking fixture. And I was wondering how often people use the five cut process, and/or understand the theory.

[Mark Hennebury]

You guys are both right. A good Long machinist square and a good accurate test machinist indicator (not plunge indicator made by fowler) like Starret, Brown & Sharpe, Verdict or Interapid. But every machinist knows how to certify the quality and accuracy of their own square and indicator by using cylindrical squares, serface tables, gauge blocks... Sure, Having all this machinist tools would be really nice, but they would come at a price that more than $10,000. I like to ask people sometimes how square is your square and can you show me how you check it? Don’t get me wrong, I am an indicator happy guy. But a half decent vernier and a set a feeler gauges will never hurt a woodworkers pocketbook to much.

The reason I brought this up is, this is about the second time I’ve use the five Process. I making adjustable mitre checking fixture. And I was wondering how often people use the five cut process, and/or understand the theory.

Hi Matt,

I don't see how any of it is more accurate or more simple than what i showed you for checking a mitre gauge. please explain.

[Matt Mattingley]

Hi Matt,

I don't see how any of it is more accurate or more simple than what i showed you for checking a mitre gauge. please explain.
Mark, your way is actually pretty brilliant. The only problem is that the board would need to be perfectly flat and square around the outside before the cut. Your way would also check how much the saw blade angle is at. Your way you could use just a simple set of feeler gauges. Your way works on the exact same premise as a cylindrical Square, but as I said the board would need to be dead flat and perfectly square before the cut.

[Mike Cutler]

"The reason I brought this up is, this is about the second time I’ve use the five Process. I making adjustable mitre checking fixture. And I was wondering how often people use the five cut process, and/or understand the theory."

Matt
The beauty of the five step process is that it magnifies error to a point that can easily be measured,quantified, and corrected. It also does not require a super accurate, NIST traceable, vernier. It just requires one that is repeatable. ( I worked as Metrology Technician, in a mechanical standards lab, for a few years at work early in my career.( I have a pet peeve for seeing the word "accurate" thrown about. Repeatability, resolution, yes. Accuracy? Not without a NIST Cert.)

I've used the five step process, as presented by William Ng, a time or two, for purpose specific jigs, just to validate square, and test the method out of curiosity.
It works.
I've also made a quick sled, run it through the blade,set a speed square in the kerf and adjusted the fence to the speed square. That works too and is really quick.
I do find that the large triangle square I have from Brian Lamb, in concert with a dial indicator, will give me just as good a result, without turning the machine on or cutting any wood, as the five step process. That square I have is fairly expensive, and William Ng's method requires only a $20.00 vernier. Even the plastic $5.00 model at HF would do it, if you were careful with it.

I do agree that any wood shop should have feeler gauges, a nice vernier, and a quality dial indicator. These three things make machine setups so much faster and easier. I have a set of motor shims I picked up at a junk store. These are really nice for establishing a "known" reference, and since I have a whole box of them, I can leave them on the jig until I'm done.

[Joe Calhoon]

I think the five cut process is more suited for sliding table saws. You need at least a one meter X one meter sheet that is stable. A sharp blade and do not take dust cuts to avoid deflection of the blade. For squaring a miter gauge or shop built sled for a table saw I think other methods would be better. When we used table saws and sleds I just used a square as Mike describes and had plenty of accuracy for the small workpieces cut on a sled. I never liked miter gauges for accurate crosscut and mitering work.

Mark’s method works really good for checking blade 90 and would think a good way to check a sled or miter gauge.

Matt, for checking miters you should look at Brian Lambs square that has provisions for this.

[Joe Calhoon]

Lamb square
http://www.lambtoolworks.com/products.html

[Warren Lake]

I probably made a statement on my small slider post that there is no adjustment for the cross cut fence and its done with the bearing blocks and two of the three bearings in each block. These ride on the single bar. It seemed odd to me as even the mickey mouse sliding tables I had used for years have adjustment.

Last night looking at it or at least the one side the fence wasnt on I could see there is an eccentric block so you can adjust the fence as well. I guess the pins that drop in to locate the fence will move in doing so slightly as it must change the dimension between the two drop in points as well as you have a front and back fence position for the fence. On your bigger sliders do you have the ability and have to adjust for square in both the front and rear position.

[Doug Hepler]

Guys,

OK we have chewed this over pretty well, but nobody yet has mentioned the practical basis for choosing among the various methods. The practical basis is the tolerance within which you wish to work and the practical resolution of measurement (e.g., tape measure, dial indicator, feeler gauge). The most obvious place to start is the accuracy and resolution of the protractor on the miter gauge. The measurable angle on even a high-end miter gauge is too coarse for most narrow tolerance work. So, we find a way to increase measurement resolution. We use more cuts or longer test pieces to increase resolution. The "two=cut" method overlaps with the "five-cut" method depending on how large the pieces are. Unless you specify the tolerance and the resolution the argument about which method is preferable is pointless.

Maybe the best way to understand this is to decide on a maximum acceptable tolerance for the largest cut you plan to make. If you need to cut 48" wide pieces to a tolerance of 1/16" then trigonometry [tan(a) = rise/run] will tell you that the maximum angular error would be in the hundredths of a degree. You need a method like the "five-cut" to increase resolution. If you need to cut 6" wide pieces to the same tolerance, then you can tolerate more angular error and can use methods with lower resolution, such as the "two-cut" method.

Doug

[Osvaldo Cristo]

The five-step process is you take a cut using mitre or sled
Each cut references to the mitre or fence or sled.

The fifth the cut should have a small drop off that can be measured Tip to toe and should be completely parallel using A vernier.

Yes, I did. I tested both my table saw sledge and fence and for my surprise their are very precise... an unexpected conclusion if you consider I have a contractor Makita 2704 saw (made in GA, USA).

All the best.

[Mark Hennebury]

Mark, your way is actually pretty brilliant. The only problem is that the board would need to be perfectly flat and square around the outside before the cut. Your way would also check how much the saw blade angle is at. Your way you could use just a simple set of feeler gauges. Your way works on the exact same premise as a cylindrical Square, but as I said the board would need to be dead flat and perfectly square before the cut.

There was an assumption on my part that if you are looking for square, you already have flat.

You can in fact use the same method to check the board faces are square; Joint two adjoining edges of a board, crosscut the boards in half and place one of your reference faces on a flat surface and the other face to face, you will see double your error from the squaring operation on a jointer. If you square faces from a table saw, refer to the first drawing to set your blade to table angle.

Wide sheet stock, i always just just crosscut then flip to verify, based on two parallel long edges from ripping. I don't do much sheet-stock and don't own a sliding panel saw.


391364

[Rod Sheridan]

I check my saw once a year when I clean and lubricate it.

The 5 cut method works great for my saw, I check the fence in the fore and aft position....................Rod.

[johnny means]

I use the 5 cut method for squaring anything that cuts over a few inches. It can be as accurate as you want it to be. I could easily get my slider to within a 64th over 10 ft. That's probably within the margin of error you'd see on any human powered cut.

[Steve Demuth]

The five cut method has the advantage that it will work without the need for accurately parallel sides on your test piece. But if you can manage those (which shouldn't be hard if you're squaring a miter gauge or crosscut sled on an otherwise properly set up table saw), you can achieve the the same results with a single cut, a feeler gauge, and no measurement - in about the 1/3 the time. Cut your test piece with parallel faces 5" wide and long enough to register against most or all of your fence. Make your test cut through the center. Flip the right end and butt the pieces together. Use a feeler gauge to measure any gap. Then use the feeler gauge to move the fence in the direction of the open end of the butt joint at a point 10" from the pivot of the fence. If 5" and 10" don't strike you as a long enough throw to get the angular resolution you want, go with 10" and 20"

Yes, the 5-cut method gives you a 4X multiplier of any out-of square, and this method only gives a 2X. Not an issue, since you can do this entirely with the feeler as a reference, 2X will get you just as good a result as the 4X of the five-cut method. You can easily get within .002" over 10" if you use a suitably hard, stable test piece and your crosscut blade is really sharp, and your miter gauge or sled runners run that snuggly in the miter slots.

If you don't have a feeler gauge, you can get within a few thousandths just by eyeball with this method. For nearly all woodworking tasks, that will suffice.

[Simon MacGowen]

For nearly all woodworking tasks, that will suffice.

That is the key here. A lot of products are sold for big bucks because of people's obsession with machinist's standards.

I have visited some of the well-known as well as unknown woodworkers who produced or produce top quality pieces and their set ups are like yours and mine: machines tuned to tolerances offered by the suppliers, or outside in a few cases.

Simon