Beall Tilt Box Angle Gauge Review

[Bruce Benjamin]

Super review

Thanks, Steve. I haven't submitted many tool reviews before and I don't think any where I had the two leading competitors side by side to compare. My original intent wasn't to review the Wixey with the Beall but I didn't really see any better way to do it.

Bruce

[Gary Keedwell]

[quote=Bruce Benjamin;604069]I know what you mean about opinions. But at least mine is based on having both gauges to play with for a couple of weeks. How long have you had the Beall? Oh yeah, you haven't tried one...

Whoa there...I never said anything derogatory about the beal...what I meant was that their both relatively new and time will tell how they perform in the future. Durability, battery life etc. Alot of horses are strong out of the gate but sometimes peeter out.. long before the finish line.
Gary K.

[Jules Dominguez]

Bruce, I was wondering if this might work with a band saw. I suppose if the blade was wide enough.
/John

I received a Beall from Lee Valley a few days ago. It operates erratically, and I haven't taken the time to figure out what's happening and contact LV or Beall about it. One thing is when I "zero" it it doesn't read zero. Another is it's difficult to turn it off. Probably has the earlier model switches.
The size could be an issue. It fits on a fully raised 10" tablesaw blade with the table insert in place, but with no room to spare. On a 14" Delta bandsaw, the weight of the Beall causes the blade to move downward until the Beall is resting on the tabletop.
I plan to contact Beall to discuss the problems - I haven't yet, so don't take this information too negatively. It appears to give accurate readings.

[Bruce Benjamin]

[quote=Gary Keedwell;604083]

I know what you mean about opinions. But at least mine is based on having both gauges to play with for a couple of weeks. How long have you had the Beall? Oh yeah, you haven't tried one...

Whoa there...I never said anything derogatory about the beal...what I meant was that their both relatively new and time will tell how they perform in the future. Durability, battery life etc. Alot of horses are strong out of the gate but sometimes peeter out.. long before the finish line.
Gary K.

I guess time will tell but I really don't think that electronics at this relatively basic level give much to worry about. But we will see I guess. Are there any modern electronic devices are are problematic that are as basic as this these days? For $40 or less I'm not going to be too upset if it only lasts a year or two. To me they're basically disposable and I'm a long way from being a rich man. I expect either unit to last long enough to be rendered obsolete.

Oh, and I didn't think you were being derogatory at all. I was just playing along.

Bruce

[Robert Mickley]

Gary, the beal, mainly based on the review in this thread. That extra decimal point may just be for show, but you can't resist it.

Although I find it interesting that it is accurate to 0.1, yet displays a resolution of 0.05

Accuracy and resolution are 2 different things. you set it on the table saw and zero it, it could be of up to 0.1 even though the readout shows 0.
The important thing is as long as it maintains that 0.1 throughout the range of motion since all we are using it for is measuring the difference in degrees between the saw table and the saw blade.

[Randy Klein]

Accuracy and resolution are 2 different things. you set it on the table saw and zero it, it could be of up to 0.1 even though the readout shows 0.
The important thing is as long as it maintains that 0.1 throughout the range of motion since all we are using it for is measuring the difference in degrees between the saw table and the saw blade.

I know they are 2 different things. I just think its funny to show a resolution at a finer precision than the accuracy.

Its like calculating solutions to mathematical/engineering problems. The accuracy of the answer can only be as accurate as the input data, even though the calculator will show many more digits than that.

In your example, if at 0, it could be up to 0.1 off, how does it choose to display 0.5 vs 0.0 since it can't resolve that difference due to the accuracy limitation?

But honestly, I really don't care either way. I like the extra digit.

[Jason Beam]

In your example, if at 0, it could be up to 0.1 off, how does it choose to display 0.5 vs 0.0 since it can't resolve that difference due to the accuracy limitation?

It was hard for me to grasp at first, too, but this statement is what stuck out at me. It's easy to wrap your head around it if you first realize that accuracy and resolution are unconnected. Neither one limits the other.

Your sentence is trying to combine the two and they're not even all that related. Resolution is the number of (or size of) distinct points that can be indicated. Precision is how accurate any given point is, NOT how accurate a value is for a given measurement. It sounds like splitting hairs at first but it does make sense, eventually.

Think about a table saw fence with a tape on the rail. Say the tape is marked in 32nds. The resolution is 1/32. Now, if manufacturing can put that tape's 0 mark as much as 1/16 from the blade, your accuracy is 1/16. Your resolution remains a 1/32 because the position of the tape doesn't change the distance between each mark, but it does change their precision since it's up to 1/16 away from the blade.

The above example fits with the previously stated sentiment of the accuracy being equal across the entire range of measure. Add to the fact that the tape was printed with a certain degree of accuracy and things get all sorts of logarithmic on you :P

I hope that I haven't confused the point even further.

[Bruce Benjamin]

It was hard for me to grasp at first, too, but this statement is what stuck out at me. It's easy to wrap your head around it if you first realize that accuracy and resolution are unconnected. Neither one limits the other.

Your sentence is trying to combine the two and they're not even all that related. Resolution is the number of (or size of) distinct points that can be indicated. Precision is how accurate any given point is, NOT how accurate a value is for a given measurement. It sounds like splitting hairs at first but it does make sense, eventually.

Think about a table saw fence with a tape on the rail. Say the tape is marked in 32nds. The resolution is 1/32. Now, if manufacturing can put that tape's 0 mark as much as 1/16 from the blade, your accuracy is 1/16. Your resolution remains a 1/32 because the position of the tape doesn't change the distance between each mark, but it does change their precision since it's up to 1/16 away from the blade.

The above example fits with the previously stated sentiment of the accuracy being equal across the entire range of measure. Add to the fact that the tape was printed with a certain degree of accuracy and things get all sorts of logarithmic on you :P

I hope that I haven't confused the point even further.

Good explanation, Jason. I've tried to explain the difference using the analogy of a bullseye target and a couple of rifles. A gun is more accurate but not as precise if you can get all of the bullets in a 3" ring around the bullseye but each bullet hole spread out all all the way around. The other gun isn't as accurate but is more precise when it can get each bullet right through the same hole but that hole is 6 inches away from the bullseye. I think your explanation works better for this situation though. Something with higher precision, (greater resolution) has the potential for greater accuracy but it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be more accurate.

Something to consider when Wixey and Beall give a claimed accuracy of .1 degree, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be off by .1 degree. It just means that this is what they guarantee. I've found that they both appear to be about dead on to the extent that their resolution allows. Did I say that right? I think the Beall, with it's .05 resolution, was able to get closer to the mark than the Wixey. Or at least, I knew when the blade, fence, etc. was closer to the mark than with the Wixey. As I cranked my TS blade over with both gauges stuck to the blade, both readouts changed in unison except that the Beall's .05 number changed twice as often as the Wixey's .1 number changed. Clear as mud?

Bruce

[Randy Klein]

Jason, thats a good way to explain it and I agree with you. I'll change my previous posts to reflect it and then claim you copied me...

[Art Mann]

I already own a Wixey and am pleased with it. However, I think your review was very nicely done and is definitely worthwhile to the community.

Good job,

Art

[Jason Beam]

Jason, thats a good way to explain it and I agree with you. I'll change my previous posts to reflect it and then claim you copied me...

That's okay, I'm sure the guy I stole it from won't find either of us! :P

[Brent Dowell]

I received a Beall from Lee Valley a few days ago. It operates erratically, and I haven't taken the time to figure out what's happening and contact LV or Beall about it. One thing is when I "zero" it it doesn't read zero. Another is it's difficult to turn it off. Probably has the earlier model switches.

I think it's just a pretty sensitive little gizmo. In order to get mine to register 0.00, I make sure the surface I have it on is dead still, and solid. Then I press down on top of it to hold it steady, and hit the reset button.

[Bruce Benjamin]

I think it's just a pretty sensitive little gizmo. In order to get mine to register 0.00, I make sure the surface I have it on is dead still, and solid. Then I press down on top of it to hold it steady, and hit the reset button.

It sounds like you got one of the early ones with the switch problem. Although mine didn't sound as difficult to use as yours, it was a little bit difficult to use. The second one works just fine. Contact Beall and I'll bet they'll swap it for a new one. They paid for my return shipping too.

Bruce

[Brent Dowell]

I just went out and checked the tilt box. Actually, It's not that bad. Got to the point I can do it one handed. Maybe my characterization was a little exaggerated?

I have to admit, I haven't gotten to play with it much yet, but I sure do like it. Just had to put the blade through the full tilt one way then t'other.

I was surprised that after moving my saw from the old place to the new, the tilt seemed to be pretty acurately set. A little off (.1?), but not bad.

Think I might be inspired to pull out all the dial indicators and stuff and do a little tune up on things.

Thanks!

[Bruce Benjamin]

I just went out and checked the tilt box. Actually, It's not that bad. Got to the point I can do it one handed. Maybe my characterization was a little exaggerated?

I have to admit, I haven't gotten to play with it much yet, but I sure do like it. Just had to put the blade through the full tilt one way then t'other.

I was surprised that after moving my saw from the old place to the new, the tilt seemed to be pretty acurately set. A little off (.1?), but not bad.

Think I might be inspired to pull out all the dial indicators and stuff and do a little tune up on things.

Thanks!

Brent, I was actually responding to the post by Jules but I didn't see his post that you quoted. I see his post now though. You probably have the newer Tilt Box. You do sort of have to have a steady hand but it only took me a few tries to get it right. Now it's easy to do. I look at this as a sign that the gauge is more sensitive. That's a good thing in my opinion.

How did you determine that it was the gauge that was off and not the blade? As long as I got it to zero properly I found that both the Wixey and the Beall to be right on the money. At least they consistently read the same when I took them off and put them back on again. Also, I used my machinist square to check the jointer fence and they always matched up. However, there could very well be some gauges that aren't as accurate as others are I suppose.

Bruce