Just a note to anyone who is reluctant to try edge jointing on the
table saw. I've been thinking about this in light of some recent posts.
Last night, I tried something akin to the method described below.
http://www.woodworkingtips.com/etips/2005/01/28/wb/
It took about 5 minutes to make a semi-sacrificial fence and start
jointing a beat-up piece of mystery wood from my scrap bucket. I got
some machine marks, but not nearly as prominent as I sometimes get when
doing a conventional rip. The machine marks came out with a few swipes
from a jack plane. The results were extremely encouraging.
What makes this sort of a gloat is the slackluster effort and
substandard machinery I put into it. The saw was a Delta Shopmaster
TS220LS, one of the beefier benchtop saws with the decent-sized
aluminum table. The blade is the one that came with the saw, and it
needs cleaning, and I have not done *any* alignment on the saw (and
this is kind of embarrassing, now that I see it in writing) for several
years, during which time it rode in the back of a truck from Maryland
to Wyoming. The result had no right to be as good as it was.
Similarly, the jack plane was a Buck Brothers el plane-o special from
the Borg that's been lying around in the state to which such tools seem
accustomed (unused) for several years. All I did was take it apart and
put it back together semi-right. (The cap iron is probably too far
back, and there's probably too much mouth showing.) I did not lap the
sole nor oven hone or sharpen the iron, much less flatten the
horribly-finished cap iron. And this plane took the machine marks right
off and produced nice curly shavings and left a glassy finish. I was
amazed. This very plane is frequently described as "unusable" and
"garbage" and "a door stop" and "unsuitable even for a dog to throw up
on," and I was expecting it to live up to that rep. It was sort of a
due diligence test before tuning it up and then finally shelling out
for a L-N. Not to say I don't still want one, or that the Home Cheapo
model is in the same league-- I was just surprised that it worked at
all.
I figured this experiment would be a total wash until I set everything
up correctly, but much to my surprise, the results were pretty good.
Now when I clean and align and sharpen everything, I expect the results
will be good enough. It's so easy that I wonder why I ever hesitated to
try it.
"boorite"
> Last night, I tried something akin to the method described below.
>
> http://www.woodworkingtips.com/etips/2005/01/28/wb/
>
> It took about 5 minutes to make a semi-sacrificial fence and start
> jointing a beat-up piece of mystery wood from my scrap bucket. I got
> some machine marks, but not nearly as prominent as I sometimes get when
> doing a conventional rip. The machine marks came out with a few swipes
> from a jack plane. The results were extremely encouraging.
Snipped
IMHO That's the rank's in my top 5 silly ideas for a jig category. If you
need a straight/90 edge and you don't have a jointer or a half decent hand
plane, then why not tack (double stick tape, brads, whatever) a straight
board on the crooked board and rip. 2 minutes, done.
Dave
Teamcasa wrote:
> "boorite"
> > Last night, I tried something akin to the method described below.
> >
> > http://www.woodworkingtips.com/etips/2005/01/28/wb/
> >
> > It took about 5 minutes to make a semi-sacrificial fence and start
> > jointing a beat-up piece of mystery wood from my scrap bucket. I got
> > some machine marks, but not nearly as prominent as I sometimes get when
> > doing a conventional rip. The machine marks came out with a few swipes
> > from a jack plane. The results were extremely encouraging.
>
> Snipped
>
> IMHO That's the rank's in my top 5 silly ideas for a jig category. If you
> need a straight/90 edge and you don't have a jointer or a half decent hand
> plane, then why not tack (double stick tape, brads, whatever) a straight
> board on the crooked board and rip. 2 minutes, done.
Sure, to get the edges parallel, I do that. You can even tape a length
of angle iron to the fence side of the board for a reference edge. To
me, the idea of jointing is slightly different. With the support on
both the infeed and outfeed sides, and referencing the fence on the
waste side of the board, you can plane and joint an edge a hair at a
time without ever resetting the fence.
To me it seems that if this kind of fence is a silly waste of time,
then devoting a whole standalone machine (the jointer) to the same idea
must be a *really* silly waste of time!
Just a PS to clarify.
Teamcasa wrote:
> IMHO That's the rank's in my top 5 silly ideas for a jig category. If you
> need a straight/90 edge and you don't have a jointer or a half decent hand
> plane, then why not tack (double stick tape, brads, whatever) a straight
> board on the crooked board and rip. 2 minutes, done.
I agree, but the thing is, that way is 2 minutes every time. Then if
you want to take more off you have to bump the fence, check cut line,
bump the fence, etc. Another board-- you have to tack on the straight
edge, adjust the fence, etc. With the sacrificial fence, you spend 5
minutes making the thing, and from then on you slap the boards on and
go, just like with a jointer.
blueman wrote:
> I am a novice here and may be missing something here but why do you
> need multiple pieces of wood. Why not take simple 1xX stock, stand it
> on its side, raise the blade all the way and kerf out the infeed
> portion.
>
> Then you can screw/clamp the single board on edge just like a standard
> sacrificial fence.
Almost exactly what I did! I didn't do it just like the page I cited,
but more like you say, except in reverse order. I raised the blade all
the way, set the rip fence just right of the blade, enough to take
slightly less than a kerf's width off the left face of the sacrificial
fence. Then I fed it (on edge) partway through, stopped the saw,
lowered the blade, flipped the thick end of the sacrificial fence to
the back of the table, fixed it to the rip fence, and lined up that
thicker back part *exactly* with the left side of the saw blade. Then I
raised the blade into the sacrificial fence. With the fence on the
right and the workpiece referencing it on the left face, the front part
of the fence guides the far edge of the work in just shy of the right
side of the blade, and the back part supports the work exactly even
with the left side of the blade. Make sense?
The reason I cut from the front, flipped, and raised instead of just
raising the blade into the fence and pulling it out from the back is so
my hand wouldn't get yanked into the blade in the event of kickback.
Since my fence is on edge, it's taller than the one pictured in the
article.
(I actually hadn't seen that webpage until I was posting this thread
and looking for an illustration of what I was trying to do.)
> Also, if you do it this way then you don't have to move the rip fence
> to the other side of the blade
Yeah, exactly, I never did.
> Finally, I don't see why you need to kerf out the full width of the
> blade, in fact you could make multiple such "jigs" to allow for
> different jointing depths that are tied to "round" number units such
> as 1/16" or 1/32" as opposed to the arbitrary unit of blade kerf
> width. Since, according to my understanding you need only a single
> board it should literally take only a couple of minutes to make up a
> set of standard widths.
Very much so, exactly.
boorite wrote:
...
> [...snip description of sorry state of...]this plane took the machine marks right
> off and produced nice curly shavings and left a glassy finish. ...
On what kind of material did this experiment take place? I'd suggest
on cherry or other furniture wood the results might not have been so
pleasing...
...
> Now when I clean and align and sharpen everything, I expect the results
> will be good enough. It's so easy that I wonder why I ever hesitated to
> try it.
I've never tried such a technique as I would either use the jointer or
a good plane to start with after simply ripping to near width, but if
you don't have either a jointer or a good plane, I'd think a similar
setup w/ a good router and spiral bit would provide a far better
surface on a broad range of woods...
YMMV, IMO, $0.02, etc., etc., ...
dpb wrote:
> On what kind of material did this experiment take place?
Some crap that's been in my scrap pile for years. I'll try to ID it.
> I'd suggest
> on cherry or other furniture wood the results might not have been so
> pleasing...
I do suspect that tame grain has a lot to do with it.
> I've never tried such a technique as I would either use the jointer or
> a good plane to start with after simply ripping to near width, but if
> you don't have either a jointer or a good plane, I'd think a similar
> setup w/ a good router and spiral bit would provide a far better
> surface on a broad range of woods...
Yeah, I've got one of those 3/4 hp mini shapers set up to do this with
a carbide-tipped straight bit, and it does well. Can also set up my
little router table this way or go handheld with a laminate bit against
a straight edge. The advantage of the TS setup over the shaper/router
table setup is support for long or wide work. It's also faster than the
handheld router method.
Just another way of doing the same thing.
Steve W wrote:
> Pretty clever idea I think. I was about to try a little jointing on my
> router table, but this seems easier to set up. Why would a router set up
> work better?
I think it's easier to get away totally without machine marks with a
router. I haven't done any edges with spiral bits, but with a plain old
two-flute carbide straight or laminate bit, edges come out very clean.
I think tearout is more of a problem, though.
But like I said, the machine marks are nothing to plane off, and I'll
bet if I put in a good blade and aligned everything, they might go away
altogether. I'll be getting a WWII sometime soon (and sticking it in a
bench saw?), and I keep hearing they produce glue-ready edges. So we'll
see. In the meantime, I might try one of those cheap hollow-ground
planer blades just to try it.
To me, it's easier to slap a fence on the saw table than to swap router
bits and then have to either set up a straightedge or the router table
fence.
dpb wrote:
> On what kind of material did this experiment take place? I'd suggest
> on cherry or other furniture wood the results might not have been so
> pleasing...
Having looked at it more closely, and thinking about where it came from
and when, I think it's bald cypress. That would explain why it was so
workable.
Maybe I'll try El Plane-o on some oak now.
"boorite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dpb wrote:
>
>> On what kind of material did this experiment take place?
>
> Some crap that's been in my scrap pile for years. I'll try to ID it.
>
>> I'd suggest
>> on cherry or other furniture wood the results might not have been so
>> pleasing...
>
> I do suspect that tame grain has a lot to do with it.
>
>> I've never tried such a technique as I would either use the jointer or
>> a good plane to start with after simply ripping to near width, but if
>> you don't have either a jointer or a good plane, I'd think a similar
>> setup w/ a good router and spiral bit would provide a far better
>> surface on a broad range of woods...
>
> Yeah, I've got one of those 3/4 hp mini shapers set up to do this with
> a carbide-tipped straight bit, and it does well. Can also set up my
> little router table this way or go handheld with a laminate bit against
> a straight edge. The advantage of the TS setup over the shaper/router
> table setup is support for long or wide work. It's also faster than the
> handheld router method.
>
> Just another way of doing the same thing.
>
Pretty clever idea I think. I was about to try a little jointing on my
router table, but this seems easier to set up. Why would a router set up
work better?
-Steve W
"boorite" <[email protected]> writes:
> Just a note to anyone who is reluctant to try edge jointing on the
> table saw. I've been thinking about this in light of some recent posts.
>
> Last night, I tried something akin to the method described below.
>
> http://www.woodworkingtips.com/etips/2005/01/28/wb/
>
> It took about 5 minutes to make a semi-sacrificial fence and start
> jointing a beat-up piece of mystery wood from my scrap bucket. I got
> some machine marks, but not nearly as prominent as I sometimes get when
> doing a conventional rip. The machine marks came out with a few swipes
> from a jack plane. The results were extremely encouraging.
>
I am a novice here and may be missing something here but why do you
need multiple pieces of wood. Why not take simple 1xX stock, stand it
on its side, raise the blade all the way and kerf out the infeed
portion.
Then you can screw/clamp the single board on edge just like a standard
sacrificial fence.
Also, if you do it this way then you don't have to move the rip fence
to the other side of the blade (which my saw can't do anyway) since
you can flip and rotate the board.
Finally, I don't see why you need to kerf out the full width of the
blade, in fact you could make multiple such "jigs" to allow for
different jointing depths that are tied to "round" number units such
as 1/16" or 1/32" as opposed to the arbitrary unit of blade kerf
width. Since, according to my understanding you need only a single
board it should literally take only a couple of minutes to make up a
set of standard widths.
Am I missing something here?
First - I remember this item . . . it's probably in my 'Jig & Fixture notes'
*collection*.
However, I never built it . . . because I didn't seem to need it ???!!!
Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the whole reason for
'jointing' is to obtain a flat, smooth surface for 'full contact' gluing -
hence the appellation 'JOINT-ing'.
Some time ago I 'won' a free trial {on THIS forum} of a Ceramic-Tipped saw
blade. The proviso was that I use it and report my findings. Figuring it
would be one of toughest tests, I used it to fabricate a transom from 3
Mahogany boards. I ripped them to approximate size, glued them up, in two
stages, using clamps & cauls. It looked like ONE, SOLID, PIECE !! Still does
. . . 3 years later.
Granted, some people use a jointer to 'surface' 6 or 8in boards {depending
on the size of their equipment}but that is not germane to this discussion.
Being a 'small boat' sailor & builder, I'm a big believer in 'multi-tasking'
equipment. If a 'dedicated' piece is needed, I'll usually build a jig or
fixture. Again, if memory serves, a fixture like this - only MUCH larger -
was designed for use on a Router Table for the same purpose, only for planks
to about 8ft in length.
Regards,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
"boorite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve W wrote:
>
> > Pretty clever idea I think. I was about to try a little jointing on my
> > router table, but this seems easier to set up. Why would a router set
up
> > work better?
>
> I think it's easier to get away totally without machine marks with a
> router. I haven't done any edges with spiral bits, but with a plain old
> two-flute carbide straight or laminate bit, edges come out very clean.
> I think tearout is more of a problem, though.
>
> But like I said, the machine marks are nothing to plane off, and I'll
> bet if I put in a good blade and aligned everything, they might go away
> altogether. I'll be getting a WWII sometime soon (and sticking it in a
> bench saw?), and I keep hearing they produce glue-ready edges. So we'll
> see. In the meantime, I might try one of those cheap hollow-ground
> planer blades just to try it.
>
> To me, it's easier to slap a fence on the saw table than to swap router
> bits and then have to either set up a straightedge or the router table
> fence.
>