# Digital Angle Guage



## robwilk (Oct 13, 2010)

Just seen this on eBay i thought it looked a handy little gadget does anybody use one or something similar. ?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Digital-Angle...898?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item35ad10bc8a

Rob......


----------



## Jasonb (Oct 13, 2010)

I've had an original Wixey one for about 4 years, use it mostly for setting my tablesaw blade but it is handy for setting work at an angle in the mill.

Jason


----------



## mklotz (Oct 13, 2010)

Most of these are accurate to +/- 0.1 deg. Good enough for rough and ready stuff and woodworking but certainly nothing like the accuracy of a sine bar.

I have one but use it mostly for reasonability checks on more accurate setups.


----------



## robwilk (Oct 13, 2010)

Just when you think you are getting to grips with this hobby something new crops up :
What is a sine bar ?

Rob.......


----------



## miker (Oct 13, 2010)

Rob, Have a look here and all will be revealed.. 

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=31317


----------



## John Rudd (Oct 14, 2010)

Rob, I too have the Wixey indicator....
A good piece of kit if you want 0.1 degree accuracy.... Paid £22 for mine too inc post.

The accuracy, for me hasnt been a hindrance in any of my projects...


----------



## jmshep (Oct 14, 2010)

Wouldn't be without mine, it gets used for all sorts of jobs - Its a bit like an electric screwdriver, you can't think of a reason for having one until you get one and then you can't do without it.

I thought the 0.1 degree resolution would be a limiting factor for engineering but in practice it is good enough for a lot of jobs as it is very sensitive. When setting something up at an angle in the milling vice for example just set the zero on the xy table, transfer the gauge to the work and set the angle relative to the table.
If you don't have the luxury of, or need the accuracy of sine bars I think it is probably more accurate than using protractors for example.


----------



## robwilk (Oct 14, 2010)

I think i might get one although it looks like you can be more accurate with a sine bar my work is probably not that accurate plus it looks like a big time saver.
Thanks for your input 

Rob......


----------



## Chazz (Oct 15, 2010)

Although a Sine Bar is on my list of things to get, ditto to what jmshep said, my digital angle gauge has been just fine for every thing including remote angle readings.

Cheers,
Chazz


----------



## Blogwitch (Oct 15, 2010)

I use mine a fair amount for quickie jobs, no problems with it except that the base isn't flat, but stepped, so in certain configurations you need to stick it to a parallel first.
Plus no one has come up with a magnet that sticks to everything just yet. 

For a laymans method of using a sine bar, try this

http://madmodder.net/index.php?topic=2157.0


Bogs


----------



## robwilk (Oct 15, 2010)

Thanks for that link Bogs i would love that calculator but could not find the down load section. Maybe i am going blind :big:
Is there a chance you could put it on here . ;D

Rob......


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Oct 15, 2010)

I just checked on the internet, and it claims that a pound is worth $1.61Canadian. That makes the one in the first link worth about $40.25. Busy Bee tools has a "digital angle gauge" http://www.busybeetools.com/products/ANGLE-GAUGE-DIGITAL%2d-WIXEY.html for $40.00.-------0.1 degrees of accuracy would be far more accurate than any method I currently have in my shop. I have been thinking about buying one myself.---Brian


----------



## Blogwitch (Oct 16, 2010)

Rob,

I attached it to a post the other day, but can't remember where, so here it is again.


Bogs 

View attachment workshop calculator.exe


----------



## FIXIT (Oct 16, 2010)

thanks for that 
Steve


----------



## robwilk (Oct 16, 2010)

Thanks for that Bogs Thm:

Rob.....


----------



## deverett (Oct 16, 2010)

Should come in useful. Thanks, Bogs.

Dave
The Emerald Isle


----------



## Captain Jerry (Oct 16, 2010)

I know that Marv's program will tell you which blocks to use from an 81 gauge block set, but I seem to remember that there is a selection procedure that will end up with the correct total once you know what the stack height is but for the life of me I cant remember the details. But it was quick and simple. You don't have to do any addition, just select a block and "x" out the corresponding digit in the target dimension. Somebody on here knows what I am talking about even if I didn't say it quite right.

Jerry


----------



## mklotz (Oct 16, 2010)

Jerry,

I don't see how what you describe would be possible. No block set has 0.000x blocks for obvious practical reasons. Most of them have 0.100x blocks.

That means that, if the required height is of the form 0.abcx, removing the 0.000x portion by using the 0.100x block will automatically reduce the required height in the tenths (a) position by one.

Unless you're a closet metrologist, you only need to control the stack height to a few thousandths for the kind of shop work we do. An adjustable parallel and a micrometer will provide more than enough accuracy for most jobs.

Also, while I've written a program to calculate the stack height, all one really needs is a $10 scientific calculator - every shop should have one. Then the stack height can be calculated thusly..

enter angle
press 'sin' key
press 'x' (multiply) key
enter sine bar length
press '=' key

voila, the stack height is shown in the display.


----------



## Captain Jerry (Oct 16, 2010)

Marv

I don't have an 81 block set or a sine bar so I couldn't test the procedure. I only mentioned it because no information is too trivial for this forum and I thought it was interesting when I read it. The procedure didn't check off the digits right to left as you suggest. It was just a little bit more non-intuitive. Now I'll have to go find it. I thought for sure you would know of it. I'll report back.

Jerry


----------



## Captain Jerry (Oct 16, 2010)

I found it. It is not as simple as I said, it does involve subtraction. Simply stated, the rule is remove the last digit from the right by subtraction. Using a standard 81 block to achieve a stack height of 2.0074 it proceeds like this:

2.0074
 .1004  Block 1
-------
1.9070
 .107   Block 2
-------
1.8000
 .800   Block 3
-------
1.0000
1.0000  Block 4

The method also works with sets with missing blocks. To make a second stack of the same height, the primary choices are already in use but it can be reached with a stack of 6 blocks like this:

2.0074
 .1003  Block 1
-------
1.9071  
 .1001  Block 2
-------
1.8070  
 .117   Block 3
-------
1.6900
 .140   Block 4
-------
1.5500
 .950   Block 5
-------
 .6000
 .600   Block 6
-------
000000

The procedure for metric blocks is the same. It may not be as simple to use as Marv's program but I don't take my computer to the shop. It wouldn't matter if I did because as I said, I don't have a set of gauge blocks. If it comes to the point that I need it, I'll order one of the following:

http://www.buzzillions.com/reviews/maxim-81-piece-magnetic-alphabet-blocks-set-reviews

http://www.transcat.com/Catalog/pro...=516-202-26&utm_source=google&utm_medium=base

I don't understand the price difference.

Jerry

Reference: Machinist Ready Reference 9th edition 
        Compiled by C. Weingartner


----------



## mklotz (Oct 17, 2010)

What you're describing is the algorithm employed in my program. As you discovered, it isn't quite as simple as your first description.

You'll notice that, even with the 81 block set, certain stack heights are unachievable. Any height of the form 0.0xyz where z<>0 can't be made.

Gauge blocks are overkill for most home shops. For sinebar stuff a mike and adjustable parallel are sufficient. For calibrating calipers, etc. get a set of space blocks - inexpensive and close enough for government work.


----------



## shred (Oct 17, 2010)

mklotz  said:
			
		

> What you're describing is the algorithm employed in my program. As you discovered, it isn't quite as simple as your first description.
> 
> You'll notice that, even with the 81 block set, certain stack heights are unachievable. Any height of the form 0.0xyz where z<>0 can't be made.


Speaking from total ignorance here, can you stack under both ends of the sine bar to get those?


----------



## mklotz (Oct 17, 2010)

shred  said:
			
		

> Speaking from total ignorance here, can you stack under both ends of the sine bar to get those?



Yes, that's how it's normally done. Sometimes folks resort to using feeler gauges but they're not as accurate.

BTW, I corrected the spelling of gauge in the thread title. It's been bugging me. "Guage" is a small town in Kentucky.


----------

