If the previous chapter (Options One Through Four) was a long hard winter , then Option #5 is a cold and muddy spring. This is a frequent type problem among millwrights; whom will usually use their logic and experience to get the job done. But when pressed for details of these gut feeling methods, it s wise to be capable of producing a sketch similar to FIGURES (1 or 2 ) and demonstrating the mathematics involved. So, without further ado: Reference FIGURE (1).

From previous calculations on this example it is known that:

The front motor feet K needs (initially) to be lowered .015"; The rear motor feet L needs (initially) to be lowered .035"; Both K and L are flat on the pad without shims;

and:

• The motor must be resting on a minimum of .050" of shims; when the alignment is complete.

For the following examples, assume that options # 1 through 4 (previous chapter) have been explored and declined by engineering for various reasons. Point C (FIGURE (1) was a pet peeve trouble zone. Engineering has decreed that point C will not be allowed to rise the proposed .085" (option #1, previous chapter) or even the .013" described in Option #4.

Even with these restrictions, it s still possible to raise points O and H the minimum .065" and .085" (respectively) without raising point C even .001". This will allow all four motor feet to rest on...