Progress on the Nightstands

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:14:09 -0800, OFWW <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, but then there are finishers, and the real finishers. Which takes
>the product to a whole nut her level.

Lousy spell checker in Forte' and I do mean lousy! " 'nuther"

On 2/7/2016 8:15 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:55:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2016 4:31 PM, krw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 06:05:34 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:34:43 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> $70 on a Bosch sander and maybe $100 on a decent vac might be
>>>>>> doable. Think I'd get anywhere near the performance with just the paper?
>>>>>> Enough to make it worthwhile?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know, this is kinda like putting racing tires on a Buick...
>>>>>
>>>>> And think how much better your Buick runs with good tires on it!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 12:15:03 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The paper is absolutely a major part of the longevity, and a vac. It
>>>>>> wold probably work pretty good on any sander/vac combo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leon is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt you can get superior performance with the Rotex/Vac Festool
>>>>> combo. But I have very satisfactory results sanding INSIDE homes with my
>>>>> Bosch 5", my Milwaukee half sheet, my Ridgid 5" oscillator and my Ridgid
>>>>> 4" finisher. I hook them up to my big shop vac with two sections of hose
>>>>> and put the vac outside if I am doing a lot of heavy sanding. If I am
>>>>> doing finer work like sanding inside bookcases (refinishing) and not
>>>>> raising much dust, I use the same shop vac with a HEPA or Allergen rated filter in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.homedepot.com/s/shop%2520vac%2520hepa%2520filter?NCNI-5
>>>>>
>>>>> It is almost dustless.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, my one guy that I trust on Festool use (beside Leon!!) tells me
>>>>> that the Rotex setup with his Festool vac is about 99% dustless in a
>>>>> house if he watches his technique. He does custom cabinet installs as
>>>>> well as custom butcher block counter tops. He would know. And as a
>>>>> sidebar, it is a $1400 sanding setup. Sure he vacuums after installation
>>>>> so the vac isn't a single use tool, but the primary use of his setup is
>>>>> to sand inside houses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would bet that I get most of that performance out of my setup, but it
>>>>> isn't as elegant, it is uglier, and it is on helluva lot noisier. His
>>>>> setup just >>sounds<< more professional!
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as the paper goes, spend the money on paper. Spend the money on
>>>>> paper. Spend the money on paper. Your satisfaction with your sanding
>>>>> setup will start with the paper you buy, and the paper should be about
>>>>> the best you can get. When I was doing a lot of refinishing, I used to
>>>>> buy this stuff wholesale:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/MIRKA-GOLD-HOLE-DUSTLESS-SANDPAPER/dp/B000XY0VZM
>>>>>
>>>>> Good paper, good price. If you aren't going to use a ton of it, then buy
>>>>> their combo pack. Worth every penny. Our old friend Robatoy turned me
>>>>> on to this product as I was using 3M, and this turned out to be much
>>>>> better. Lasted longer, and the hook and loop was better.
>>>>>
>>>>> A good sander doesn't have to be a commercial grade product like Leon
>>>>> has. He USES his a lot, so it makes perfect sense for him. My oldest
>>>>> Milwaukee random orbit is needing to be replaced as there are no more
>>>>> parts for it, but I don't use sanders enough to justify the price of a
>>>>> Festool. If I had a cabinet shop, Leon and Karl have me won over on the
>>>>> value of Festool, so no doubt I would own some of their products. But...
>>>>> I don't. So the next refinish job I get I will either be looking at this
>>>>> if it is a small one, then keep this in the stable of utility sanders:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Makita-BO5041K-5-Inch-Random-Sander/dp/B003M5IWM8/ref=sr_1_40?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid54743747&sr=1-40&keywords=5+sander
>>>>>
>>>>> or this one, the one I really want. This baby is a really nice sander,
>>>>> made in Switzerland so it probably is a rebranded Elu, like my 3hp DeWalt
>>>>> plunge router. If I buy this one, it is a Robert only sander. I have
>>>>> tested this and it is so smooth it was sexy just turning it on:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Bosch-ROS65VC-5-Rear-Handle-Vibration-Control/dp/B005NZ6EHA/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&qid54744433&sr=8-33&keywords=5+sander
>>>>>
>>>>> It picks up an amazing amount of dust even without a vacuum attachment
>>>>> with its on board filter system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do some homework and you can make yourself a great setup for a very
>>>>> reasonable cost. Oh yeah... and spend the money on paper!
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert you might want to take a look and test drive this sander. Oddly it
>>>> is in the price range of the "for Roberts hands only" Bosch sander.
>>>> Although only considered a finish sander it is silky smooth. I played with
>>>> one at a WW show a few years ago. I was shocked at how I could literally
>>>> run and guide that sander with a single finger resting on top of the
>>>> sander.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.festoolusa.com/power-tools/sanders/ets-125-eq-random-orbital-finish-sander-571817
>>>
>>> Is the ETS125 different than the RO125 in its less aggressive mode?
>>> IOW, is there an argument for having both?
>>>
>>
>> Could everyone in the back seats move up to the empty ones in the front?
>> ROTF
>>
>> Welllll.. The RO125 in aggressive mode will remove material at an
>> alarming rate, and in regular ROS it is more normal but IMHO still not a
>> finish sander. Its sanding stroke is 9/64", that is a hair under 1/8".
>> So I typically start my sanding in aggressive mode on solid wood only at
>> the joints with the Rotex. I then switch to the RO mode with the same
>> paper. Then I switch to a finer grit, 150 in RO mode and finish up with
>> the RTS 400 finish sander using 180 grit.
>> Both the RTS 400 and the ETS125 have a 5/64" sanding stroke, about half
>> that of the Rotex Ro125.
>>
>> So yes the ETS125 is different than the RO125 as far as fine sanding
>> goes. If you are staining you will probably have to go additional
>> finer grits to keep from seeing the swirls. With the finish sander I
>> typically stop at 180. Going finer grits typically means that the stain
>> will come out lighter too.
>>
>> If you are looking for a good Festool finish sander I would recommend
>> the RTS4000 or the ETS125. If you want to speed up initial sanding, the
>> sanding to make joints smooth and remove glue, the Rotex is going to do
>> that 10 times faster in aggressive mode. With the Granat 120 grit paper.
>> The Rotex can smooth out a glue joint with an undetectable by touch glue
>> line 3~5 seconds, that includes removing glue squeeze out. In regular
>> RO mode probably 10~15 seconds. It can do either with the regular Rubin
>> sand paper also however the glue will load the paper pretty quickly. I
>> have yet to see any loading on the Granat paper when doing this procedure.
>>
>> As for as an argument for having both, I have always owned, in the past
>> 25 years, RO sanders that were never really considered finish sanders.
>> And I burned through a couple of PC SpeedBloc finish sanders during that
>> time period. The SpeedBloc was a great sander but lacked any kind of
>> dust control. I like a square pad finish sander simply because it gets
>> into tight corners. That said in the past 4~5 years I have changed up
>> how I finish and assemble. While it takes significantly longer to
>> finish and assemble I prefinish parts that would be difficult to finish
>> after assembly. Soooo the ETS125 would probably work better for me
>> these days. I did not do any edge sanding with one but it seems to be
>> quite easy to control and does not require much more than a finger to
>> guide it.
>>
>> So again, With both sanders, the Rotex and a finish sander, I could see
>> you cutting sanding time down to 1/3 of the time than if you were doing
>> all sanding with a finish sander. The Rotex is really a game changer
>> when considering speed of initial sanding as you are tweaking the fit of
>> the joints especially if the joint surfaces are not on the same plane.
>> After that initial sanding you could finish the rest of the grits with a
>> finish sander in about the same time as with the Rotex in RO mode.
>
> I'm going the other way. I'm looking at a finish or detail sander.

That you are. LOL The To 125 is not going in that direction. although
I have no doubt that you would use it a lot if you bought one. But the
Rotex IMHO is NOT a one size fits all.

>
>> With that in mind, the Rotex might be good enough right down to the
>> finish "polishing" if you are mostly using coarse grain woods like oak
>> AND use a clear finish, no stain.
>> Festool has videos of the Rotex demonstrated on a rough cut slam of
>> "whatever". They use no varnish but in the end steps they use a polish
>> and the wood surface is amazing.
>>
>>
>> Now I keep mentioning Aggressive, Robatoy turned me on to the Rotex and
>> I recall him cautioning to be careful in Aggressive mode. In that mode
>> the sander removes a lot of material fast. It is not a big concern of
>> controlling the sander, in aggressive mode, so much as the material
>> disappearing pronto. And especially if you are using a vac for dust
>> collection. You will see basically nothing as far as dust is concerned
>> so you don't know how much you are removing unless you check the
>> progress every 3~4 seconds when working on a particular problem area
>> like a joint.
>>
>> I personally would not consider not having both. They are both equally
>> important tools in their own rights. They both bring something to the
>> table of equal importance, speed and finer finish sanding.
>
> Hmm, choices. So many choices! What are your thoughts on the DTS400?

I have not used a DTS400 however I think it is essentially the same as
the RTS400. They both use the same size paper, total length and total
width but the DTS has the "iron" shaped pad so it actually has less
paper on the surface than the RTS, sanding will be a bit slower. I'm
not sure how much better the tapered point will be at getting into
corners than the square corner of the RTS unless you are going into
acute angled corners. Though with the rounded sides on the pad and
paper, sanding the bottom of a bucket might be easier done with the DTS
over the RTS. I don't often run into that at all.

Swingman IIRC owns the DTS400 so he might have a thing or two to mention
about that sander.

As far as the *TS400 sanders go they are good finish sanders. They are
a little smaller than some finish sanders but do a great job. Again
this sander used with a vac compared to and just coming off of the PC
SpeedBloc finish sander 7~8 years ago I thought I had made a bad choice.
The SpeedBloc with NO dust control and raised a pile of dust quickly
and did a great job. The Festool RTS400 left no dust and as a result
the red colored Rubin paper stayed red with very little dust sticking to
the paper. That was discerning because you saw no evidence of how much
work it was doing. I'm sure the DTS400 has the same effect.
So I would say that you will certainly, with dust collection, need to
change your methods of determining progress a little. You are going to
have to feel the surface with your hand to judge progress and you will
need to compare the sharpness of the used paper to a new sheet to judge
when to change the paper out. That said when the paper stays clean it
lasts longer too.

I would not consider either of these sanders as detail sanders however
the DTS might offer some degree of detail sanding with its pointed end.

When I think of detail sanders I think of those that offer the profile
inserts for sanding round overs or coves. PC used to offer a terrible
detail sander. Many of us probably regretted buying that one, I know I
did. The Fein Multimaster offers detail sanding profiles.

Then there is the baby Rotex. It offers a much smaller 3.5" diameter
pad and operates like the bigger Rotex sanders plus a change out for a
triangle pad and paper for tight spots. I would want to try that one
out before pulling the trigger on that one.

http://rotex.festoolusa.com/sanders/models/RO90DX/

And finally there is the LS130 that offers multiple profile detail
sanding. IMHO this is the true detail sander and IIRC uses the same
paper as the RTS400 for regular finish sanding. IIRC also this sander
has a linear action vs. orbital so you are going to have to really pay
attention to the drain direction. Both this sander and the smaller
RO90 Rotex are north of $400. The RTS and DTS 400 sanders are about
$250 each.

https://www.festoolusa.com/power-tools/sanders/ls-130-eq-linear-detail-sander-567852




>
>> And remember I build a lot and speed is important to me when sanding.
>>
>> Thank y'all for coming out tonight!
>>
> Thank you for spending the time to educate me! I'll probably read
> your lesson a few dozen more times. ;-)
>
Glad to share. You are welcome.

On 2/8/2016 6:16 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:14:09 -0800, OFWW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but then there are finishers, and the real finishers. Which takes
>> the product to a whole nut her level.
>
> Lousy spell checker in Forte' and I do mean lousy! " 'nuther"
>

Welcome to my world. ;~)

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:55:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 2/7/2016 4:31 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 06:05:34 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:34:43 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> $70 on a Bosch sander and maybe $100 on a decent vac might be
>>>>> doable. Think I'd get anywhere near the performance with just the paper?
>>>>> Enough to make it worthwhile?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, this is kinda like putting racing tires on a Buick...
>>>>
>>>> And think how much better your Buick runs with good tires on it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 12:15:03 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The paper is absolutely a major part of the longevity, and a vac. It
>>>>> wold probably work pretty good on any sander/vac combo.
>>>>
>>>> Leon is right.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt you can get superior performance with the Rotex/Vac Festool
>>>> combo. But I have very satisfactory results sanding INSIDE homes with my
>>>> Bosch 5", my Milwaukee half sheet, my Ridgid 5" oscillator and my Ridgid
>>>> 4" finisher. I hook them up to my big shop vac with two sections of hose
>>>> and put the vac outside if I am doing a lot of heavy sanding. If I am
>>>> doing finer work like sanding inside bookcases (refinishing) and not
>>>> raising much dust, I use the same shop vac with a HEPA or Allergen rated filter in it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.homedepot.com/s/shop%2520vac%2520hepa%2520filter?NCNI-5
>>>>
>>>> It is almost dustless.
>>>>
>>>> However, my one guy that I trust on Festool use (beside Leon!!) tells me
>>>> that the Rotex setup with his Festool vac is about 99% dustless in a
>>>> house if he watches his technique. He does custom cabinet installs as
>>>> well as custom butcher block counter tops. He would know. And as a
>>>> sidebar, it is a $1400 sanding setup. Sure he vacuums after installation
>>>> so the vac isn't a single use tool, but the primary use of his setup is
>>>> to sand inside houses.
>>>>
>>>> I would bet that I get most of that performance out of my setup, but it
>>>> isn't as elegant, it is uglier, and it is on helluva lot noisier. His
>>>> setup just >>sounds<< more professional!
>>>>
>>>> As far as the paper goes, spend the money on paper. Spend the money on
>>>> paper. Spend the money on paper. Your satisfaction with your sanding
>>>> setup will start with the paper you buy, and the paper should be about
>>>> the best you can get. When I was doing a lot of refinishing, I used to
>>>> buy this stuff wholesale:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/MIRKA-GOLD-HOLE-DUSTLESS-SANDPAPER/dp/B000XY0VZM
>>>>
>>>> Good paper, good price. If you aren't going to use a ton of it, then buy
>>>> their combo pack. Worth every penny. Our old friend Robatoy turned me
>>>> on to this product as I was using 3M, and this turned out to be much
>>>> better. Lasted longer, and the hook and loop was better.
>>>>
>>>> A good sander doesn't have to be a commercial grade product like Leon
>>>> has. He USES his a lot, so it makes perfect sense for him. My oldest
>>>> Milwaukee random orbit is needing to be replaced as there are no more
>>>> parts for it, but I don't use sanders enough to justify the price of a
>>>> Festool. If I had a cabinet shop, Leon and Karl have me won over on the
>>>> value of Festool, so no doubt I would own some of their products. But...
>>>> I don't. So the next refinish job I get I will either be looking at this
>>>> if it is a small one, then keep this in the stable of utility sanders:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Makita-BO5041K-5-Inch-Random-Sander/dp/B003M5IWM8/ref=sr_1_40?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid54743747&sr=1-40&keywords=5+sander
>>>>
>>>> or this one, the one I really want. This baby is a really nice sander,
>>>> made in Switzerland so it probably is a rebranded Elu, like my 3hp DeWalt
>>>> plunge router. If I buy this one, it is a Robert only sander. I have
>>>> tested this and it is so smooth it was sexy just turning it on:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Bosch-ROS65VC-5-Rear-Handle-Vibration-Control/dp/B005NZ6EHA/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&qid54744433&sr=8-33&keywords=5+sander
>>>>
>>>> It picks up an amazing amount of dust even without a vacuum attachment
>>>> with its on board filter system.
>>>>
>>>> Do some homework and you can make yourself a great setup for a very
>>>> reasonable cost. Oh yeah... and spend the money on paper!
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>
>>> Robert you might want to take a look and test drive this sander. Oddly it
>>> is in the price range of the "for Roberts hands only" Bosch sander.
>>> Although only considered a finish sander it is silky smooth. I played with
>>> one at a WW show a few years ago. I was shocked at how I could literally
>>> run and guide that sander with a single finger resting on top of the
>>> sander.
>>>
>>> http://www.festoolusa.com/power-tools/sanders/ets-125-eq-random-orbital-finish-sander-571817
>>
>> Is the ETS125 different than the RO125 in its less aggressive mode?
>> IOW, is there an argument for having both?
>>
>
>Could everyone in the back seats move up to the empty ones in the front?
> ROTF
>
>Welllll.. The RO125 in aggressive mode will remove material at an
>alarming rate, and in regular ROS it is more normal but IMHO still not a
>finish sander. Its sanding stroke is 9/64", that is a hair under 1/8".
>So I typically start my sanding in aggressive mode on solid wood only at
>the joints with the Rotex. I then switch to the RO mode with the same
>paper. Then I switch to a finer grit, 150 in RO mode and finish up with
>the RTS 400 finish sander using 180 grit.
>Both the RTS 400 and the ETS125 have a 5/64" sanding stroke, about half
>that of the Rotex Ro125.
>
>So yes the ETS125 is different than the RO125 as far as fine sanding
>goes. If you are staining you will probably have to go additional
>finer grits to keep from seeing the swirls. With the finish sander I
>typically stop at 180. Going finer grits typically means that the stain
>will come out lighter too.
>
>If you are looking for a good Festool finish sander I would recommend
>the RTS4000 or the ETS125. If you want to speed up initial sanding, the
>sanding to make joints smooth and remove glue, the Rotex is going to do
>that 10 times faster in aggressive mode. With the Granat 120 grit paper.
>The Rotex can smooth out a glue joint with an undetectable by touch glue
>line 3~5 seconds, that includes removing glue squeeze out. In regular
>RO mode probably 10~15 seconds. It can do either with the regular Rubin
>sand paper also however the glue will load the paper pretty quickly. I
>have yet to see any loading on the Granat paper when doing this procedure.
>
>As for as an argument for having both, I have always owned, in the past
>25 years, RO sanders that were never really considered finish sanders.
>And I burned through a couple of PC SpeedBloc finish sanders during that
>time period. The SpeedBloc was a great sander but lacked any kind of
>dust control. I like a square pad finish sander simply because it gets
>into tight corners. That said in the past 4~5 years I have changed up
>how I finish and assemble. While it takes significantly longer to
>finish and assemble I prefinish parts that would be difficult to finish
>after assembly. Soooo the ETS125 would probably work better for me
>these days. I did not do any edge sanding with one but it seems to be
>quite easy to control and does not require much more than a finger to
>guide it.
>
>So again, With both sanders, the Rotex and a finish sander, I could see
>you cutting sanding time down to 1/3 of the time than if you were doing
>all sanding with a finish sander. The Rotex is really a game changer
>when considering speed of initial sanding as you are tweaking the fit of
>the joints especially if the joint surfaces are not on the same plane.
>After that initial sanding you could finish the rest of the grits with a
>finish sander in about the same time as with the Rotex in RO mode.
>
>With that in mind, the Rotex might be good enough right down to the
>finish "polishing" if you are mostly using coarse grain woods like oak
>AND use a clear finish, no stain.
>Festool has videos of the Rotex demonstrated on a rough cut slam of
>"whatever". They use no varnish but in the end steps they use a polish
>and the wood surface is amazing.
>
>
>Now I keep mentioning Aggressive, Robatoy turned me on to the Rotex and
>I recall him cautioning to be careful in Aggressive mode. In that mode
>the sander removes a lot of material fast. It is not a big concern of
>controlling the sander, in aggressive mode, so much as the material
>disappearing pronto. And especially if you are using a vac for dust
>collection. You will see basically nothing as far as dust is concerned
>so you don't know how much you are removing unless you check the
>progress every 3~4 seconds when working on a particular problem area
>like a joint.
>
>I personally would not consider not having both. They are both equally
>important tools in their own rights. They both bring something to the
>table of equal importance, speed and finer finish sanding.
>
>And remember I build a lot and speed is important to me when sanding.
>
>Thank y'all for coming out tonight!
>
>
Good Show and especially the info, being in the back row the
explanations make up for the loss of sight because of the fat guys in
front of me. ;)

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:55:01 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 2/7/2016 4:31 PM, krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2016 06:05:34 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 11:34:43 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> $70 on a Bosch sander and maybe $100 on a decent vac might be
>>>>> doable. Think I'd get anywhere near the performance with just the paper?
>>>>> Enough to make it worthwhile?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, this is kinda like putting racing tires on a Buick...
>>>>
>>>> And think how much better your Buick runs with good tires on it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 12:15:03 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The paper is absolutely a major part of the longevity, and a vac. It
>>>>> wold probably work pretty good on any sander/vac combo.
>>>>
>>>> Leon is right.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt you can get superior performance with the Rotex/Vac Festool
>>>> combo. But I have very satisfactory results sanding INSIDE homes with my
>>>> Bosch 5", my Milwaukee half sheet, my Ridgid 5" oscillator and my Ridgid
>>>> 4" finisher. I hook them up to my big shop vac with two sections of hose
>>>> and put the vac outside if I am doing a lot of heavy sanding. If I am
>>>> doing finer work like sanding inside bookcases (refinishing) and not
>>>> raising much dust, I use the same shop vac with a HEPA or Allergen rated filter in it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.homedepot.com/s/shop%2520vac%2520hepa%2520filter?NCNI-5
>>>>
>>>> It is almost dustless.
>>>>
>>>> However, my one guy that I trust on Festool use (beside Leon!!) tells me
>>>> that the Rotex setup with his Festool vac is about 99% dustless in a
>>>> house if he watches his technique. He does custom cabinet installs as
>>>> well as custom butcher block counter tops. He would know. And as a
>>>> sidebar, it is a $1400 sanding setup. Sure he vacuums after installation
>>>> so the vac isn't a single use tool, but the primary use of his setup is
>>>> to sand inside houses.
>>>>
>>>> I would bet that I get most of that performance out of my setup, but it
>>>> isn't as elegant, it is uglier, and it is on helluva lot noisier. His
>>>> setup just >>sounds<< more professional!
>>>>
>>>> As far as the paper goes, spend the money on paper. Spend the money on
>>>> paper. Spend the money on paper. Your satisfaction with your sanding
>>>> setup will start with the paper you buy, and the paper should be about
>>>> the best you can get. When I was doing a lot of refinishing, I used to
>>>> buy this stuff wholesale:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/MIRKA-GOLD-HOLE-DUSTLESS-SANDPAPER/dp/B000XY0VZM
>>>>
>>>> Good paper, good price. If you aren't going to use a ton of it, then buy
>>>> their combo pack. Worth every penny. Our old friend Robatoy turned me
>>>> on to this product as I was using 3M, and this turned out to be much
>>>> better. Lasted longer, and the hook and loop was better.
>>>>
>>>> A good sander doesn't have to be a commercial grade product like Leon
>>>> has. He USES his a lot, so it makes perfect sense for him. My oldest
>>>> Milwaukee random orbit is needing to be replaced as there are no more
>>>> parts for it, but I don't use sanders enough to justify the price of a
>>>> Festool. If I had a cabinet shop, Leon and Karl have me won over on the
>>>> value of Festool, so no doubt I would own some of their products. But...
>>>> I don't. So the next refinish job I get I will either be looking at this
>>>> if it is a small one, then keep this in the stable of utility sanders:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Makita-BO5041K-5-Inch-Random-Sander/dp/B003M5IWM8/ref=sr_1_40?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid54743747&sr=1-40&keywords=5+sander
>>>>
>>>> or this one, the one I really want. This baby is a really nice sander,
>>>> made in Switzerland so it probably is a rebranded Elu, like my 3hp DeWalt
>>>> plunge router. If I buy this one, it is a Robert only sander. I have
>>>> tested this and it is so smooth it was sexy just turning it on:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Bosch-ROS65VC-5-Rear-Handle-Vibration-Control/dp/B005NZ6EHA/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&qid54744433&sr=8-33&keywords=5+sander
>>>>
>>>> It picks up an amazing amount of dust even without a vacuum attachment
>>>> with its on board filter system.
>>>>
>>>> Do some homework and you can make yourself a great setup for a very
>>>> reasonable cost. Oh yeah... and spend the money on paper!
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>
>>> Robert you might want to take a look and test drive this sander. Oddly it
>>> is in the price range of the "for Roberts hands only" Bosch sander.
>>> Although only considered a finish sander it is silky smooth. I played with
>>> one at a WW show a few years ago. I was shocked at how I could literally
>>> run and guide that sander with a single finger resting on top of the
>>> sander.
>>>
>>> http://www.festoolusa.com/power-tools/sanders/ets-125-eq-random-orbital-finish-sander-571817
>>
>> Is the ETS125 different than the RO125 in its less aggressive mode?
>> IOW, is there an argument for having both?
>>
>
>Could everyone in the back seats move up to the empty ones in the front?
> ROTF
>
>Welllll.. The RO125 in aggressive mode will remove material at an
>alarming rate, and in regular ROS it is more normal but IMHO still not a
>finish sander. Its sanding stroke is 9/64", that is a hair under 1/8".
>So I typically start my sanding in aggressive mode on solid wood only at
>the joints with the Rotex. I then switch to the RO mode with the same
>paper. Then I switch to a finer grit, 150 in RO mode and finish up with
>the RTS 400 finish sander using 180 grit.
>Both the RTS 400 and the ETS125 have a 5/64" sanding stroke, about half
>that of the Rotex Ro125.
>
>So yes the ETS125 is different than the RO125 as far as fine sanding
>goes. If you are staining you will probably have to go additional
>finer grits to keep from seeing the swirls. With the finish sander I
>typically stop at 180. Going finer grits typically means that the stain
>will come out lighter too.
>
>If you are looking for a good Festool finish sander I would recommend
>the RTS4000 or the ETS125. If you want to speed up initial sanding, the
>sanding to make joints smooth and remove glue, the Rotex is going to do
>that 10 times faster in aggressive mode. With the Granat 120 grit paper.
>The Rotex can smooth out a glue joint with an undetectable by touch glue
>line 3~5 seconds, that includes removing glue squeeze out. In regular
>RO mode probably 10~15 seconds. It can do either with the regular Rubin
>sand paper also however the glue will load the paper pretty quickly. I
>have yet to see any loading on the Granat paper when doing this procedure.
>
>As for as an argument for having both, I have always owned, in the past
>25 years, RO sanders that were never really considered finish sanders.
>And I burned through a couple of PC SpeedBloc finish sanders during that
>time period. The SpeedBloc was a great sander but lacked any kind of
>dust control. I like a square pad finish sander simply because it gets
>into tight corners. That said in the past 4~5 years I have changed up
>how I finish and assemble. While it takes significantly longer to
>finish and assemble I prefinish parts that would be difficult to finish
>after assembly. Soooo the ETS125 would probably work better for me
>these days. I did not do any edge sanding with one but it seems to be
>quite easy to control and does not require much more than a finger to
>guide it.
>
>So again, With both sanders, the Rotex and a finish sander, I could see
>you cutting sanding time down to 1/3 of the time than if you were doing
>all sanding with a finish sander. The Rotex is really a game changer
>when considering speed of initial sanding as you are tweaking the fit of
>the joints especially if the joint surfaces are not on the same plane.
>After that initial sanding you could finish the rest of the grits with a
>finish sander in about the same time as with the Rotex in RO mode.

I'm going the other way. I'm looking at a finish or detail sander.

>With that in mind, the Rotex might be good enough right down to the
>finish "polishing" if you are mostly using coarse grain woods like oak
>AND use a clear finish, no stain.
>Festool has videos of the Rotex demonstrated on a rough cut slam of
>"whatever". They use no varnish but in the end steps they use a polish
>and the wood surface is amazing.
>
>
>Now I keep mentioning Aggressive, Robatoy turned me on to the Rotex and
>I recall him cautioning to be careful in Aggressive mode. In that mode
>the sander removes a lot of material fast. It is not a big concern of
>controlling the sander, in aggressive mode, so much as the material
>disappearing pronto. And especially if you are using a vac for dust
>collection. You will see basically nothing as far as dust is concerned
>so you don't know how much you are removing unless you check the
>progress every 3~4 seconds when working on a particular problem area
>like a joint.
>
>I personally would not consider not having both. They are both equally
>important tools in their own rights. They both bring something to the
>table of equal importance, speed and finer finish sanding.

Hmm, choices. So many choices! What are your thoughts on the DTS400?

>And remember I build a lot and speed is important to me when sanding.
>
>Thank y'all for coming out tonight!
>
Thank you for spending the time to educate me! I'll probably read
your lesson a few dozen more times. ;-)

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:10:26 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
> On 2/11/2016 12:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:45:39 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> 3mm is just shy of 1/8". Did you mean 3 mil?
> >>
> >> Puckdropper
> >
> > I absolutely did! Thanks for correcting that. I have had guns on the brain lately due to some recent activities, and everything was mm, not mil.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
>
> Damn!I have a lot of sanding to do to remove most of that 3mm now.

LOL! Fear not, brother Leon. As a Knight of the Royal Order of the Gremlin Green, thou hast The Mighty Sword of Rotex in you scabbard. It will make short work of bad advice!

Robert

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:33:13 PM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/10/16 11:54 AM, Swingman wrote:

> I remember those picture when BIN was first suggested to me.
> I used it (still do) to prime and paint the cut edges of high grade MDF
> panels.
> I was very impressed with how it soaked in, hardened, and sanded smooth
> on the cut "end grain" edges. I think I could've stopped at two coats
> but probably went to four on some edges, simply because it dried so
> fast. It builds up nicely and obviously takes paint as well as anything.

Just a comment, Mike. Hopefully a helpful one!

BIN is my favorite primer and has been my go to for many years. SW has fin=
ally come out with a valid competitor, but that's another post.

BIN is NOT a building finish. In fact, too much BIN is a very bad thing. =
When applied properly, BIN is a semi-permeable finish that allows the top c=
oats of finish to penetrate it (also known as a bondable substrate) and get=
to the surface underneath. It is tempting to build with BIN because it sa=
nds so easily, but that is not it's purpose.

In fact, Rustoleum/BIN recommends only one coat applied at about 3mm, to fi=
nish out at around 1.5mm when dried. I had it on good authority from someon=
e I trusted that too much BIN would foul the top coat's abrasion resistance=
(substrate too soft)and that it would also diminish the ability of the top=
coat to bond as paint couldn't penetrate the multiple coats of BIN. I did=
n't believe it.

However, back in the lab (several houses and years ago after spraying out c=
abinets) I decided to try that idea out on scraps as it was certainly easy =
enough to do. Now I believe it; take it from me, it's true in both cases. =
Mike Marlow and I have discussed the value of reading the application info=
as well as the MSDS many, many times. I remember I went to the site, and =
there it was in writing that Rust/BIN recommends only on coat of product.

If find yourself in a project where you need some pore/grain/rough surface =
filling, I would strongly recommend this product.

http://www.sherwin-williams.com/document/PDS/en/035777655733/

I have used it extensively. The amount of solids per gallon works out to a=
bout 75% more (!!!!) than in BIN and part of its design intent is to be a f=
iller/primer. Like BIN solvent base, this has titanium dioxide as its fill=
er material, so it sands very well and looks like BIN when applied. You ca=
n roll this easily, brush it or spray it. If you spray, use a large tip gu=
n and plenty of pressure as this isn't a job for HVLP. Also, the lower vis=
cosity and high amount of solids can be a gun eater, so I shoot mine out of=
an inexpensive CAS gun from HF, and it shoots very well.

Just a quick warning on the BIN solvent based product.

Robert

On 2/11/2016 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:10:26 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/11/2016 12:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:45:39 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3mm is just shy of 1/8". Did you mean 3 mil?
>>>>
>>>> Puckdropper
>>>
>>> I absolutely did! Thanks for correcting that. I have had guns on the brain lately due to some recent activities, and everything was mm, not mil.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>>
>> Damn!I have a lot of sanding to do to remove most of that 3mm now.
>
> LOL! Fear not, brother Leon. As a Knight of the Royal Order of the Gremlin Green, thou hast The Mighty Sword of Rotex in you scabbard. It will make short work of bad advice!
>
> Robert
>


Thanks for appearing to be only human every once in a while Robert.
Ye'ole master of fini'chen.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

*snip*
> In fact, Rustoleum/BIN recommends only one coat applied at about 3mm,
> to finish out at around 1.5mm when dried. I had it on good authority
> from someone I trusted that too much BIN would foul the top coat's
> abrasion resistance (substrate too soft)and that it would also
> diminish the ability of the top coat to bond as paint couldn't
> penetrate the multiple coats of BIN. I didn't believe it.
>
*snip*
>
> Robert

3mm is just shy of 1/8". Did you mean 3 mil?

Puckdropper

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:45:39 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:

> 3mm is just shy of 1/8". Did you mean 3 mil?
>
> Puckdropper

I absolutely did! Thanks for correcting that. I have had guns on the brain lately due to some recent activities, and everything was mm, not mil.

Robert

On 2/11/2016 12:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 8:45:39 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 3mm is just shy of 1/8". Did you mean 3 mil?
>>
>> Puckdropper
>
> I absolutely did! Thanks for correcting that. I have had guns on the brain lately due to some recent activities, and everything was mm, not mil.
>
> Robert
>


Damn!I have a lot of sanding to do to remove most of that 3mm now.

On 2/9/2016 5:54 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:39:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2016 6:14 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> Here is a short video with the extended tenon option for cabinet
>>> doors.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlCC9SsdMNY#t=15
>>>
>>> Which requires a mortise in the stiles. Our plan was to make cathedral
>>> style doors, and in the corner upper cabinet doors to use glass and
>>> have a stile and rails on the face of the glass of the two doors. The
>>> rest of the doors I would rather not have raised panels, but flush or
>>> inset, where you can see a small grove on the back of the panel where
>>> you can see part of the normal tenon. I hope I am clear enough on
>>> that. I also like the hidden tenon option, but if it is not seen some
>>> people might think the joint was just a box joint.
>>
>> Made many hundreds of cabinet doors down through they years. Just some
>> observations from that experience:
>>
>> Starting with basics, the single most important ingredient in making
>> _serviceable_ doors is to _religiously_ insist on straight grained,
>> perfectly flat, milled and dimensioned stock ... no exceptions.
>>
> Are you speaking of S4S? I have found boards supposedly like that and
> the only way they could say that was because to boards were cut down
> to shadows of their former selves. We have a couple hardwood inside
> lumber stores that I was planning on using for that as well as the ff.

If you have the ability now to surface your material to a consistent
thickness there is S2S, S3S, S2SR1, to name a few. Years ago I bought
S2S to save money. Now that I sell most of what I build so I opt for
S4S and pass the added cost on to the customer. It requires too much of
my time to buy random width and hunt for which pieces can come out of
which stock. S4S delivers to me precisely 3/4" thick, not 13/16", and
the same width. My optimization programs take over from there.

S4S is typically the best but not guaranteed to be flat or straight. I
go to the lumber yard and hand pick each piece. And typically the
lumber yard is going to have the better pricing and quality.


>
> Even Woodcraft sucked with what little they stock, and the box stores
> only sell unfinished "Bows" IYKWIM.

Look at the local lumber yards.



>
>> You will also need the skill, experience, and ability to read the
>> various woods and their grain well enough to predict what that stock
>> will do in the future. In short, bowed, warped and twisted material, now
>> or in the future, is not conducive to making serviceable doors that will
>> last.
>>
>
> There I am learning still from the end grain, and also from what
> little stock I have at home. Related to this is the center of the
> door, the panels. I have read that it is better to join boards rather
> than use just one (like for raised panels) to eliminate warping, and
> best to use a good plywood, but then my options are reduced to a flat
> panel from what little I know, but a very stable door over the years
> that way. If so I could still make the cathedral frame I would
> imagine.

If you are talking about solid wood panels it is difficult to find and
or not economical to pay a premium to go with a single solid piece of
wood for a panel. Assuming that the panel is going to be more than
8~10" wide. So gluing up is going to be how most go. IMHO a wide solid
panel is not likely to warp if it has not already done so. It will be
important to seal all edges and front and back so that it does not
absorb moisture more in one area than the other. I try to finish as
soon after milling especially if changing the thickness or if I make the
panels into raised panels. And if you change the thickness try to take
an even amount from both sides. I have seen wood warp pretty quickly in
humid conditions when I only resurface one side.

Optionally you can go with plywood as this material is very stable but
you are limited to plain flat unless you added some trim moldings to
dress it up.

One other thing to consider with your doors that will receive glass. I
build my glass door frames very similar to the way I build my cabinet
back face frames. I use a lap joint for the corners and have recessed
rabbet on the back side. Then I let my glass guy cut the glass and use
a silicone like caulk sealant to glue the glass in place. No need for
moldings to hold it in place and not glass rattle and the glass helps to
stiffen up the door.


BUT as Swingman said, you are going to be doing special milling on these
door parts. Consistent thickness, straight and flat stock helps you to
mill correctly and gives much better results. It is always best to use
flat straight stock but especially on a door.



>
> In all of this the end product is to be painted white per the boss,
> and Leon did mention a while back two different woods that would show
> very little grain when painted. Wouldn't it be possible to M&T the
> door frame with the arched top? Any additional thoughts would be
> appreciated.

Certainly or use the method I described earlier. Just cut your arch
after cutting your mortises and or cutting the tenons on the ends of the
rails.



>
>
>> Unless you have the tools and practical expertise to chose and mill your
>> stock, you will most assuredly end up buying much more S4S stock than
>> you need, with the result that much will end up as waste; and your
>> cost/benefit will ratio suffer ... and that is a much more likely
>> occurrence with a DIY door project.
>
> I do have a 6" jointer/planer, a 12" planer that I am working the
> kinks out of, and of course a TS, BS, etc, along with a few planes,
> and hand tools, plus a router table, cast iron, but I am going to
> build a larger one soon. So it wouldn't cost much to try and see how
> it goes. I have been keeping track of the costs since if I can find a
> really decent set of cabinets for not much more than the wood it would
> seem foolish to let pride stand in the way.

With the jointer and planer you can buy rough cut wood but I would
advise to buy all of your wood up front with room for waste and mill
everything at the same time. You do not want to have to go back and
surface plane a couple more boards and be trying to get the exact same
thickness.




>>
>> Despite the nice bit advertisements, home shop router setups are rarely
>> sturdy, accurate and repeatable enough to cut a full set of doors
>> without repeated setups, and trial and error tweaks, meaning more wasted
>> material, with often undesirable end results.
>>
>> YMMV, but I have tried, and failed more times before I got the results I
>> truly wanted.
>>
>
> I have noticed that most of the router slop is in the housings
> allowing the motor assy to shift about 3/1000 of an inch, side to
> side, and in one case it was the router motor bearings themselves that
> were at fault. I was making a simple art frame easel, double sided,
> for my grand kids when I first noticed the inconsistency that you are
> speaking of. The flip clamp on those that have a split base helps to
> lock it in place.
>
> Seems like you are saying a router is fine for decorations, not for
> fitment.?

A router is fine for cutting tenons, groves for narrow plywood panels
not so much. This was what I used before getting a nice dado set. Now
the router set is more trouble unless you simply can't use anything else
such as the rail and stile bit sets.


>
>> I still make a fair number of doors, but I only do those that I can do
>> cost effectively, have the tools and experience to make, and that I can
>> reasonably expect will stand the test of time.
>>
>> The majority of doors I make these days are of the flat panel style,
>> made with stub tenon joinery, on the table saw.
>>
>> The same methodology Leon explained in an earlier post. We both do many
>> of our doors that way for a reason ... we try to do what we have the
>> expertise, material, and tools to reasonably expect serviceable results.
>>
>> Although nothing ventured, nothing gained ... be aware that it will take
>> a lot more than a set of advertised router bits to obtain the advertised
>> results, guaranteed.
>>
>
> In all seriousness it wouldn't break my heart to stay away from that
> particular router bit setup, do to all the variations one needs to
> adjust the bit to, just to make a hidden tenon. And it would strike me
> that the most reasonable way would be to buy several sets of them so
> you could have each bit permanently set for each phase of the Job, but
> then I'd of spent half the money for a domino tool and only be able to
> use the bits just from cabinet door joints. :(

There is that and also router bit simply do not stay sharp very long and
when matched sets are resharpened they don't often produces results like
they did when new. Those 2 or 3 carbide cutters on each bit are
removing a lot of material. And it should go with out saying you want
to be using 1/2" shank bits when ever possible.




>
>> Might want to round up all aspects of what it takes to make a few stub
>> tenon doors, and gain some experience in making a few serviceable doors
>> before becoming more ambitious in that regard.
>>
>
> Yes, I was planning on making a few "toy' doors of whatever variety to
> set up a plan of attack as well as increase my comfort level with the
> processes.
>
>> Another option, and one I use quite often these days myself.
>>
>> I can almost guarantee there is a local cabinet shop who specialize in
>> cabinet doors, and therefore has the material, the tools, and the
>> experience to make doors much more inexpensively than you, or I.
>>
>
> Like Mike said, good luck with that! But yes, I would go to looking
>
>> Although though it possible to do it yourself, there is no shame, and
>> prudence often dictates finishing up a well made set of cabinetry,
>> carefully crafted in a particular style, with a professionally made set
>> of doors, equally carefully crafted in that style.
>
> Certainly something to consider, for sure. Just getting the right wood
> alone would be half the battle.
>
Yes it is. ;~)

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:39:56 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/8/2016 6:14 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> Here is a short video with the extended tenon option for cabinet
>> doors.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlCC9SsdMNY#t=15
>>
>> Which requires a mortise in the stiles. Our plan was to make cathedral
>> style doors, and in the corner upper cabinet doors to use glass and
>> have a stile and rails on the face of the glass of the two doors. The
>> rest of the doors I would rather not have raised panels, but flush or
>> inset, where you can see a small grove on the back of the panel where
>> you can see part of the normal tenon. I hope I am clear enough on
>> that. I also like the hidden tenon option, but if it is not seen some
>> people might think the joint was just a box joint.
>
>Made many hundreds of cabinet doors down through they years. Just some
>observations from that experience:
>
>Starting with basics, the single most important ingredient in making
>_serviceable_ doors is to _religiously_ insist on straight grained,
>perfectly flat, milled and dimensioned stock ... no exceptions.
>
Are you speaking of S4S? I have found boards supposedly like that and
the only way they could say that was because to boards were cut down
to shadows of their former selves. We have a couple hardwood inside
lumber stores that I was planning on using for that as well as the ff.

Even Woodcraft sucked with what little they stock, and the box stores
only sell unfinished "Bows" IYKWIM.

>You will also need the skill, experience, and ability to read the
>various woods and their grain well enough to predict what that stock
>will do in the future. In short, bowed, warped and twisted material, now
>or in the future, is not conducive to making serviceable doors that will
>last.
>

There I am learning still from the end grain, and also from what
little stock I have at home. Related to this is the center of the
door, the panels. I have read that it is better to join boards rather
than use just one (like for raised panels) to eliminate warping, and
best to use a good plywood, but then my options are reduced to a flat
panel from what little I know, but a very stable door over the years
that way. If so I could still make the cathedral frame I would
imagine.

In all of this the end product is to be painted white per the boss,
and Leon did mention a while back two different woods that would show
very little grain when painted. Wouldn't it be possible to M&T the
door frame with the arched top? Any additional thoughts would be
appreciated.


>Unless you have the tools and practical expertise to chose and mill your
>stock, you will most assuredly end up buying much more S4S stock than
>you need, with the result that much will end up as waste; and your
>cost/benefit will ratio suffer ... and that is a much more likely
>occurrence with a DIY door project.

I do have a 6" jointer/planer, a 12" planer that I am working the
kinks out of, and of course a TS, BS, etc, along with a few planes,
and hand tools, plus a router table, cast iron, but I am going to
build a larger one soon. So it wouldn't cost much to try and see how
it goes. I have been keeping track of the costs since if I can find a
really decent set of cabinets for not much more than the wood it would
seem foolish to let pride stand in the way.
>
>Despite the nice bit advertisements, home shop router setups are rarely
>sturdy, accurate and repeatable enough to cut a full set of doors
>without repeated setups, and trial and error tweaks, meaning more wasted
>material, with often undesirable end results.
>
>YMMV, but I have tried, and failed more times before I got the results I
>truly wanted.
>

I have noticed that most of the router slop is in the housings
allowing the motor assy to shift about 3/1000 of an inch, side to
side, and in one case it was the router motor bearings themselves that
were at fault. I was making a simple art frame easel, double sided,
for my grand kids when I first noticed the inconsistency that you are
speaking of. The flip clamp on those that have a split base helps to
lock it in place.

Seems like you are saying a router is fine for decorations, not for
fitment.?

>I still make a fair number of doors, but I only do those that I can do
>cost effectively, have the tools and experience to make, and that I can
>reasonably expect will stand the test of time.
>
>The majority of doors I make these days are of the flat panel style,
>made with stub tenon joinery, on the table saw.
>
>The same methodology Leon explained in an earlier post. We both do many
>of our doors that way for a reason ... we try to do what we have the
>expertise, material, and tools to reasonably expect serviceable results.
>
>Although nothing ventured, nothing gained ... be aware that it will take
>a lot more than a set of advertised router bits to obtain the advertised
>results, guaranteed.
>

In all seriousness it wouldn't break my heart to stay away from that
particular router bit setup, do to all the variations one needs to
adjust the bit to, just to make a hidden tenon. And it would strike me
that the most reasonable way would be to buy several sets of them so
you could have each bit permanently set for each phase of the Job, but
then I'd of spent half the money for a domino tool and only be able to
use the bits just from cabinet door joints. :(

>Might want to round up all aspects of what it takes to make a few stub
>tenon doors, and gain some experience in making a few serviceable doors
>before becoming more ambitious in that regard.
>

Yes, I was planning on making a few "toy' doors of whatever variety to
set up a plan of attack as well as increase my comfort level with the
processes.

>Another option, and one I use quite often these days myself.
>
>I can almost guarantee there is a local cabinet shop who specialize in
>cabinet doors, and therefore has the material, the tools, and the
>experience to make doors much more inexpensively than you, or I.
>

Like Mike said, good luck with that! But yes, I would go to looking

>Although though it possible to do it yourself, there is no shame, and
>prudence often dictates finishing up a well made set of cabinetry,
>carefully crafted in a particular style, with a professionally made set
>of doors, equally carefully crafted in that style.

Certainly something to consider, for sure. Just getting the right wood
alone would be half the battle.

On 2/10/2016 11:29 AM, dadiOH wrote:

> It is water base. I have used BIN but it has been so long ago that I can't
> make a valid comparison. I can tell you that...

BIN, sprayed with HVLP on plywood and poplar:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopPlaque?noredirect=1#5842350052432712850

(scroll to right to see the painted surface)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

OFWW wrote:

> In all of this the end product is to be painted white per the boss,
> and Leon did mention a while back two different woods that would show
> very little grain when painted.

IMO, your biggest problem is not going to be making the things, it will be
the finishing. I'm assuming, since they are for the kitchen and that you
will want gloss or semi-gloss. I'm also assuming, given the amount of work
to get to that point, that you will want a close to flawless paint job.
Very tough to do.

I have yet to encounter a wood that won't show grain when painted. I have
yet to find a router bit that will leave a paintable surface. In reality,
the wood used doesn't make much difference because you need a flawless
surface on TOP of the wood before you paint and to do that you need a high
build, easy sanding primer, maybe some filler* too. Years ago,when I was
living on my sailboat, Interlux had a (pricy) gem. No longer available,
best I have currently found is this...
http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/products/catalog/premium-wall-wood-primer/?referringCategory=interior-paint-coatings/primers/&N=759705555

It needs to be sanded PERFECTLY smooth and it is hard to tell when the
sanding is perfect. Fingers and ears** are better than eyes. 3M flexible
sanding sponges help a lot on curvy areas. Once sanded, a color coat which
is then sanded off can help show primed areas that need more work.

When ready for the final topcoats, spray is needed. If you topcoat with an
oil base paint, it can be rubbed out and polished; ditto white lacquer. Not
much oil paint anymore, acrylic sands like bubble gum. Rattle cans will
work.
_______________________

*you can make a good filler with shellac and talc

** ears because you can hear the difference (when sanding) between sanded
and unsanded areas. With a mechanical sander, there is a difference in the
way the sander moves.

On 2/10/16 10:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> OFWW wrote:
>
>> In all of this the end product is to be painted white per the boss,
>> and Leon did mention a while back two different woods that would show
>> very little grain when painted.
>
> IMO, your biggest problem is not going to be making the things, it will be
> the finishing. I'm assuming, since they are for the kitchen and that you
> will want gloss or semi-gloss. I'm also assuming, given the amount of work
> to get to that point, that you will want a close to flawless paint job.
> Very tough to do.
>
> I have yet to encounter a wood that won't show grain when painted. I have
> yet to find a router bit that will leave a paintable surface. In reality,
> the wood used doesn't make much difference because you need a flawless
> surface on TOP of the wood before you paint and to do that you need a high
> build, easy sanding primer, maybe some filler* too. Years ago,when I was
> living on my sailboat, Interlux had a (pricy) gem. No longer available,
> best I have currently found is this...
> http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/products/catalog/premium-wall-wood-primer/?referringCategory=interior-paint-coatings/primers/&N=759705555
>

They way you described this I thought it must be their version of
Zinsser BIN which is shellac based. But in reading the tech notes, I
saw nothing about shellac.

I learned about BIN in here and it is my go-to primer when I need a
super smooth surface over wood that can be "level sanded."

Question: Have you used BIN and if so, how does it stack up against
this product?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/10/16 10:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>> OFWW wrote:
>>
>>> In all of this the end product is to be painted white per the boss,
>>> and Leon did mention a while back two different woods that would
>>> show very little grain when painted.
>>
>> IMO, your biggest problem is not going to be making the things, it
>> will be the finishing. I'm assuming, since they are for the kitchen and
>> that you will want gloss or semi-gloss. I'm also assuming, given the
>> amount
>> of work to get to that point, that you will want a close to flawless
>> paint
>> job. Very tough to do.
>>
>> I have yet to encounter a wood that won't show grain when painted. I have
>> yet to find a router bit that will leave a paintable surface. In
>> reality, the wood used doesn't make much difference because you need a
>> flawless surface on TOP of the wood before you paint and to do that you
>> need
>> a high build, easy sanding primer, maybe some filler* too. Years
>> ago,when
>> I was living on my sailboat, Interlux had a (pricy) gem. No longer
>> available, best I have currently found is this...
>> http://www.sherwin-williams.com/homeowners/products/catalog/premium-wall-wood-primer/?referringCategory=interior-paint-coatings/primers/&N=759705555
>>
>
> They way you described this I thought it must be their version of
> Zinsser BIN which is shellac based. But in reading the tech notes, I
> saw nothing about shellac.
>
> I learned about BIN in here and it is my go-to primer when I need a
> super smooth surface over wood that can be "level sanded."
>
> Question: Have you used BIN and if so, how does it stack up against
> this product?

It is water base. I have used BIN but it has been so long ago that I can't
make a valid comparison. I can tell you that...

1. this has a LOT of talc (very heavy)

2. dries to sandable in about 2 hours or less, depending on thickness, temp,
humidity, etc.

3. self levels fairly well

4. sticks well

5.sands to powder easily.

Buy a quart and see. I'd like to know how it compares to BIN too :)

dadiOH wrote:

Also, I got on to it when I was making black face frames. It is very thick
in the can, I watered it way down for the FF so I could spray it with Preval
cans. The FF were already in decent shape, a thin coat meant less sanding
and worked fine.


>> They way you described this I thought it must be their version of
>> Zinsser BIN which is shellac based. But in reading the tech notes,
>> I saw nothing about shellac.
>>
>> I learned about BIN in here and it is my go-to primer when I need a
>> super smooth surface over wood that can be "level sanded."
>>
>> Question: Have you used BIN and if so, how does it stack up against
>> this product?
>
> It is water base. I have used BIN but it has been so long ago that I
> can't make a valid comparison. I can tell you that...
>
> 1. this has a LOT of talc (very heavy)
>
> 2. dries to sandable in about 2 hours or less, depending on
> thickness, temp, humidity, etc.
>
> 3. self levels fairly well
>
> 4. sticks well
>
> 5.sands to powder easily.
>
> Buy a quart and see. I'd like to know how it compares to BIN too :)

dadiOH wrote:

> 1. this has a LOT of talc (very heavy)

Whoops, no talc, calcium carbonate. That works too :)

On 2/10/16 11:54 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 11:29 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>
>> It is water base. I have used BIN but it has been so long ago that
>> I can't make a valid comparison. I can tell you that...
>
> BIN, sprayed with HVLP on plywood and poplar:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopPlaque?noredirect=1#5842350052432712850
>
>
>
> (scroll to right to see the painted surface)
>

I remember those picture when BIN was first suggested to me.
I used it (still do) to prime and paint the cut edges of high grade MDF
panels.
I was very impressed with how it soaked in, hardened, and sanded smooth
on the cut "end grain" edges. I think I could've stopped at two coats
but probably went to four on some edges, simply because it dried so
fast. It builds up nicely and obviously takes paint as well as anything.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/10/16 5:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:33:13 PM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 2/10/16 11:54 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>> I remember those picture when BIN was first suggested to me. I used
>> it (still do) to prime and paint the cut edges of high grade MDF
>> panels. I was very impressed with how it soaked in, hardened, and
>> sanded smooth on the cut "end grain" edges. I think I could've
>> stopped at two coats but probably went to four on some edges,
>> simply because it dried so fast. It builds up nicely and obviously
>> takes paint as well as anything.
>
> Just a comment, Mike. Hopefully a helpful one!
>
> BIN is my favorite primer and has been my go to for many years. SW
> has finally come out with a valid competitor, but that's another
> post.
>
> BIN is NOT a building finish. In fact, too much BIN is a very bad
> thing. When applied properly, BIN is a semi-permeable finish that
> allows the top coats of finish to penetrate it (also known as a
> bondable substrate) and get to the surface underneath. It is
> tempting to build with BIN because it sands so easily, but that is
> not it's purpose.
>
> In fact, Rustoleum/BIN recommends only one coat applied at about 3mm,
> to finish out at around 1.5mm when dried. I had it on good authority
> from someone I trusted that too much BIN would foul the top coat's
> abrasion resistance (substrate too soft)and that it would also
> diminish the ability of the top coat to bond as paint couldn't
> penetrate the multiple coats of BIN. I didn't believe it.
>
> However, back in the lab (several houses and years ago after spraying
> out cabinets) I decided to try that idea out on scraps as it was
> certainly easy enough to do. Now I believe it; take it from me, it's
> true in both cases. Mike Marlow and I have discussed the value of
> reading the application info as well as the MSDS many, many times. I
> remember I went to the site, and there it was in writing that
> Rust/BIN recommends only on coat of product.
>
> If find yourself in a project where you need some pore/grain/rough
> surface filling, I would strongly recommend this product.
>
> http://www.sherwin-williams.com/document/PDS/en/035777655733/
>
> I have used it extensively. The amount of solids per gallon works
> out to about 75% more (!!!!) than in BIN and part of its design
> intent is to be a filler/primer. Like BIN solvent base, this has
> titanium dioxide as its filler material, so it sands very well and
> looks like BIN when applied. You can roll this easily, brush it or
> spray it. If you spray, use a large tip gun and plenty of pressure
> as this isn't a job for HVLP. Also, the lower viscosity and high
> amount of solids can be a gun eater, so I shoot mine out of an
> inexpensive CAS gun from HF, and it shoots very well.
>
> Just a quick warning on the BIN solvent based product.
>
> Robert
>

^^^^ MORE great info from this guy, here. ^^^^
Thanks, Robert, I didn't know about the one-coat thing with BIN.
It's never been a problem so far, but if I need to build again in the
future I'll try the SW.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/11/2016 6:41 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/11/2016 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:

>> LOL! Fear not, brother Leon. As a Knight of the Royal Order of the
>> Gremlin Green, thou hast The Mighty Sword of Rotex in you scabbard.
>> It will make short work of bad advice!
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>
> Thanks for appearing to be only human every once in a while Robert.
> Ye'ole master of fini'chen.

Wobbit, you too esspensive ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 19:21:05 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>> Here is a short video with the extended tenon option for cabinet
>> doors.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlCC9SsdMNY#t=15
>
>OK. That will be fine, I was thinking of a simpler set.
>

Thanks, Makes me feel a bunch better, for now.

>
>
>>
>> Which requires a mortise in the stiles. Our plan was to make cathedral
>> style doors, and in the corner upper cabinet doors to use glass and
>> have a stile and rails on the face of the glass of the two doors. The
>> rest of the doors I would rather not have raised panels, but flush or
>> inset, where you can see a small grove on the back of the panel where
>> you can see part of the normal tenon. I hope I am clear enough on
>> that. I also like the hidden tenon option, but if it is not seen some
>> people might think the joint was just a box joint.
>>
>> Would you mind post a picture of the back of your night stand to see?
>> Funny, but without seeing it, the project is not completed in my minds
>> eye. :)
>
>There now, I have not attached the backs yet but they will fit in the
>rabbet recess.
>
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb11211/24879792716/in/dateposted-public/
>

Shame on me, I never noticed the rabbet faces, Now the picture is
complete in my mind. Very nice.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:56:17 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:33:13 PM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 2/10/16 11:54 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>> I remember those picture when BIN was first suggested to me.
>> I used it (still do) to prime and paint the cut edges of high grade MDF
>> panels.
>> I was very impressed with how it soaked in, hardened, and sanded smooth
>> on the cut "end grain" edges. I think I could've stopped at two coats
>> but probably went to four on some edges, simply because it dried so
>> fast. It builds up nicely and obviously takes paint as well as anything.
>
>Just a comment, Mike. Hopefully a helpful one!
>
>BIN is my favorite primer and has been my go to for many years. SW has finally come out with a valid competitor, but that's another post.
>
>BIN is NOT a building finish. In fact, too much BIN is a very bad thing. When applied properly, BIN is a semi-permeable finish that allows the top coats of finish to penetrate it (also known as a bondable substrate) and get to the surface underneath. It is tempting to build with BIN because it sands so easily, but that is not it's purpose.
>
>In fact, Rustoleum/BIN recommends only one coat applied at about 3mm, to finish out at around 1.5mm when dried. I had it on good authority from someone I trusted that too much BIN would foul the top coat's abrasion resistance (substrate too soft)and that it would also diminish the ability of the top coat to bond as paint couldn't penetrate the multiple coats of BIN. I didn't believe it.
>
>However, back in the lab (several houses and years ago after spraying out cabinets) I decided to try that idea out on scraps as it was certainly easy enough to do. Now I believe it; take it from me, it's true in both cases. Mike Marlow and I have discussed the value of reading the application info as well as the MSDS many, many times. I remember I went to the site, and there it was in writing that Rust/BIN recommends only on coat of product.
>
>If find yourself in a project where you need some pore/grain/rough surface filling, I would strongly recommend this product.
>
>http://www.sherwin-williams.com/document/PDS/en/035777655733/
>
>I have used it extensively. The amount of solids per gallon works out to about 75% more (!!!!) than in BIN and part of its design intent is to be a filler/primer. Like BIN solvent base, this has titanium dioxide as its filler material, so it sands very well and looks like BIN when applied. You can roll this easily, brush it or spray it. If you spray, use a large tip gun and plenty of pressure as this isn't a job for HVLP. Also, the lower viscosity and high amount of solids can be a gun eater, so I shoot mine out of an inexpensive CAS gun from HF, and it shoots very well.
>
>Just a quick warning on the BIN solvent based product.
>
>Robert

I'm curious, what about the edging on plywood if primed and sanded.