UJK Parf Guide System - Videos

[skinee]

Peter I have a question/concern,it appears from the videos that the 3mm drill guide only rides on top of the holey rule rather than positively inserting into the holes and acting like a hardened guide bush,is that the case?,if so I would be concerned that with repeated use the 3mm drill bit will wear and enlarge the holes on the rule thereby throwing off the accuracy of the whole system,perhaps a larger hole in the rule in which a hardened guide bush could locate would avoid this problem

The steel rule is hardened steel and needs a hugely expensive drill to cut it on the CNC. The very slight abrasive action of a relatively soft 3 mm drill is unlikely to cause any problems. Next time you go to your workshop try cutting a hole in one of your steel rules.    Peter

most of these jobber type drill bits are in fact not "relatively soft" as they are made of high speed steel(HSS),they are intended to drill through steel and therefore will abrade and wear the holes in this rule which will, with repeated use, enlarge them,what degree of hardness(Rockwell) are the rules? this is the only weakness in an otherwise excellent system,i suggest further production runs adopt a positively locating hardened guide bush,it would only require larger hole in the rule and a modification of the drill guide,this in my opinion would make this system bulletproof

 

[ajones]

Or you could just buy some new rulers if they eventually wear out.

 

[Stoli]

As others have said, very nice idea.

But the engineer in me wants to know "how square" you were able to actually achieve, instead of a simple, but unquantifiable "perfect cut". 

Can you follow up with a four-cut measurement of the squareness of the cutting sheet you just created?  I actually thought you were going in this direction when you had "first cut" written on the board.  The quantification I am looking for is along the lines of: "the setup is out of square by Xmm out of Ymm".

And then compare the result to your MFT.

 

[rmwarren]

Hi Richard,

You have an interesting idea but it may not be necessary. The final prototype Parf Sticks show the same marks and have been used for so many holes that I could not even guess. I think it might be a pattern due to heat caused by MDF clogging of the 3mm drill. You may have noticed in the videos the higher pitch squeak when I do the 3 mm drilling - that is due to some minor MDF clogging of the small drill. The drill does get warm as one would expect.

Peter

Fair enough Peter. One of my faults is continual tinkering.

And I will repeat Kudos to you for navigating the complex design process and getting a major manufacturer to take on the project.

I have no doubt the set I ordered will be put to good use. Looking forward to the follow-on thread to this one, where everyone starts coming up with clever new ways to use holey sheet goods in the shop.

RMW

 

[bkharman]

...  use holey sheet goods in the shop.

RMW

All I hear is a Hispanic accent saying this Richard...

Cheers. Bryan.

 

[Stone Message]

As others have said, very nice idea.

But the engineer in me wants to know "how square" you were able to actually achieve, instead of a simple, but unquantifiable "perfect cut". 

Can you follow up with a four-cut measurement of the squareness of the cutting sheet you just created?  I actually thought you were going in this direction when you had "first cut" written on the board.  The quantification I am looking for is along the lines of: "the setup is out of square by Xmm out of Ymm".

And then compare the result to your MFT.

I have just done this and captured it on video in one take - in order to try and counter an sceptics. I started by marking my piece of board so viewers could see if I was up to mischief. I filmed the cutting in one go. I am keeping the pieces as they are and I am happy for any visitor to examine them.

The results will be up with the video in about 8 hours from now - I have a string of very interesting visitors at the moment !

Peter

 

[bobfog]

As others have said, very nice idea.

But the engineer in me wants to know "how square" you were able to actually achieve, instead of a simple, but unquantifiable "perfect cut". 

Can you follow up with a four-cut measurement of the squareness of the cutting sheet you just created?  I actually thought you were going in this direction when you had "first cut" written on the board.  The quantification I am looking for is along the lines of: "the setup is out of square by Xmm out of Ymm".

And then compare the result to your MFT.

I have just done this and captured it on video in one take - in order to try and counter an sceptics. I started by marking my piece of board so viewers could see if I was up to mischief. I filmed the cutting in one go. I am keeping the pieces as they are and I am happy for any visitor to examine them.

The results will be up with the video in about 8 hours from now - I have a string of very interesting visitors at the moment !

Peter

Don't think it's about "sceptics". £100 is far too expensive if it doesn't cut the holes absolutely square and an absolute bargain if it does as you'll have MFT tops for life. Don't take people's question as scepticism, just due diligence and curiosity.

Looking forward to the 4 cut video.

 

[weekendwarrior]

Overuse of "PGS" for sure!  [eek]

When I see PGS I think Parallel Guide System.  A unique product needs a unique name.  Now I'm going to be confused...  [unsure]

Nice idea.  Lots of passes required, though.

 

[rmwarren]

...  use holey sheet goods in the shop.

RMW

All I hear is a Hispanic accent saying this Richard...

Cheers. Bryan.

Bryan, picture me reading this, puzzled look, re-reading it, still no comprehension, slowly saying it out loud in my best Baba Looey imitation (eh', Queeksdraw...") and finally comprehending...

Yes, I laughed out loud.

RMW

 

[Amalix]

Absolutely fantastic Peter! This will surely be on my shopping list the next time I order from Axminster, they ought to be quite happy with your recommendations. I'm sure I'm not the only one placing repeated orders solely because you recommended them.

I do have a question, I plan on making an assembly table with holes and would like to double up on the MDF for strength. Due to space constraints the table will also function as router table. Probably with the Incra LS as fence. Will the drill-bit be long enough for drilling 40 millimeter deep allowing me to screw fasten my parf dogs from underneath?

 

[bkharman]

...  use holey sheet goods in the shop.

RMW

All I hear is a Hispanic accent saying this Richard...

Cheers. Bryan.

Bryan, picture me reading this, puzzled look, re-reading it, still no comprehension, slowly saying it out loud in my best Baba Looey imitation (eh', Queeksdraw...") and finally comprehending...

Yes, I laughed out loud.

RMW

Same genre but I was hearing Speedy Gonzalez!

Man I miss the 70's and 80's!! 

Glad you got a laugh out of it.

Cheers. Bryan.

 

[Stone Message]

Absolutely fantastic Peter! This will surely be on my shopping list the next time I order from Axminster, they ought to be quite happy with your recommendations. I'm sure I'm not the only one placing repeated orders solely because you recommended them.

I do have a question, I plan on making an assembly table with holes and would like to double up on the MDF for strength. Due to space constraints the table will also function as router table. Probably with the Incra LS as fence. Will the drill-bit be long enough for drilling 40 millimeter deep allowing me to screw fasten my parf dogs from underneath?

I think that it will be about 8 mm short of going through without having a really short amount in the chuck. It is not much of a problem if you would be happy to complete the last 8-10 mm by hand - by then the 20 mm hole already drilled will provide the accuracy for Parf Dog alignment.

Peter

 

[Stone Message]

Hi Everyone

I have made a video that shows the 4 cut test being done in the track saw cutting station that I created using the UJK Parf Guide System. Here is the link:


Peter

 

[promark747]

Hi Everyone

I have made a video that shows the 4 cut test being done in the track saw cutting station that I created using the UJK Parf Guide System. Here is the link:


Peter

Thanks Peter.  If my trig is right, your result of 0.34mm over 402mm is about 1/20 of 1 degree.  I've done 5-cut tests on my Festool MFT/3 (using Parf dogs, of course) and the results have been about the same as that.

Edit: Actually, your results may be better than 1/20 of a degree -- I forgot to divide by 4 for the 4 cuts.  You may be closer to 1/80 of a degree.

 

[Stone Message]

Excellent. The MFT3 is probably produced on a CNC so I am pleased with that.

Many thanks.

Peter

 

[Stoli]

Thanks -- I guess I was the one that provided the "challenge", but I hope it did not come across as confrontational.

What those numbers mean is that if you were to do a cut that was 1608mm long, you'd be out of square by 0.3mm, which by all measures should be acceptable. 

Your value of 0.0002 is in radians.  This can easily be converted to 0.2millirad.  To convert to degrees (for angles this small) you multiply by 180/pi which comes out to 0.011 deg, or 0.69 minutes of arc (arc minutes), or 41 seconds of arc (arc seconds).

 

[Stone Message]

Thanks -- I guess I was the one that provided the "challenge", but I hope it did not come across as confrontational.

What those numbers mean is that if you were to do a cut that was 1406mm long, you'd be out of square by 0.3mm, which by all measures should be acceptable. 

Your value of 0.0002 is in radians.  This can easily be converted to 0.2millirad.  To convert to degrees (for angles this small) you multiply by 180/pi which comes out to 0.011 deg, or 0.69 minutes of arc (arc minutes), or 41 seconds of arc (arc seconds).

Those who know my real background will understand that I love a challenge and I must say that I am really grateful to be encouraged to check this out. I did not realise just how accurate the PGS might be other tan putting my engineer's square across a cut.

I think that in all fairness that results may vary by a little up and down depending on so many other factors. Even so, the overall accuracy is such that even with a poor following wind the results are still far better than most woodworking tasks demand.

Thank you.

Peter

 

[bobfog]

Thanks -- I guess I was the one that provided the "challenge", but I hope it did not come across as confrontational.

What those numbers mean is that if you were to do a cut that was 1608mm long, you'd be out of square by 0.3mm, which by all measures should be acceptable. 

Your value of 0.0002 is in radians.  This can easily be converted to 0.2millirad.  To convert to degrees (for angles this small) you multiply by 180/pi which comes out to 0.011 deg, or 0.69 minutes of arc (arc minutes), or 41 seconds of arc (arc seconds).

I don't understand half of that [big grin]. But the headline figure of 0.3 MM over 1.6 metres should be more than acceptable for any form of joinery.

 

[mwildt]

Great video Peter, and thank you going above and beyond and doing the test. I also hope that my request wasn't seen as negative, which certainly wasn't the intention. Always good to have a test to back it up.

Looking forward to see it on this side of the pond.

Spot on!

 

[Stone Message]

Thanks -- I guess I was the one that provided the "challenge", but I hope it did not come across as confrontational.

What those numbers mean is that if you were to do a cut that was 1608mm long, you'd be out of square by 0.3mm, which by all measures should be acceptable. 

Your value of 0.0002 is in radians.  This can easily be converted to 0.2millirad.  To convert to degrees (for angles this small) you multiply by 180/pi which comes out to 0.011 deg, or 0.69 minutes of arc (arc minutes), or 41 seconds of arc (arc seconds).

I don't understand half of that [big grin]. But the headline figure of 0.3 MM over 1.6 metres should be more than acceptable for any form of joinery.

... you managed to get to half - well done. I ran out of fingers  before we got to the clock stuff - I think I will stick to woodwork and leave this detail to Steven Hawking.

Peter