I built the table below to donate to a charity auction (hopefully it will
bring more than the cost of the wood...). We are storing it our living room
temporarily, and my wife wants another one just like it; only in mahogany
rather than butternut.
http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
I picked up some 50" "shorts". After making the top and the shelf I will
have some really wide short scraps left over. I could use them to make the
side pieces, so that the grain direction will be the same as the top and
shelf. I realize that they will be much weaker than if the grain ran the
other way, but it would allow me to glue the top and shelf in since movement
would not be an issue. I "think" that would add more strength than the
sides would take away.
What do you think? Cabinets are built that way, why not tables?
I think it would be significantly weaker. It's not a really wide
table, so that might be okay, but weaker nevertheless.
Also, IMHO it wouldn't look as nice with the grain running vertically
on the sides.
Josh
Toller wrote:
> I built the table below to donate to a charity auction (hopefully it will
> bring more than the cost of the wood...). We are storing it our living room
> temporarily, and my wife wants another one just like it; only in mahogany
> rather than butternut.
>
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
>
> I picked up some 50" "shorts". After making the top and the shelf I will
> have some really wide short scraps left over. I could use them to make the
> side pieces, so that the grain direction will be the same as the top and
> shelf. I realize that they will be much weaker than if the grain ran the
> other way, but it would allow me to glue the top and shelf in since movement
> would not be an issue. I "think" that would add more strength than the
> sides would take away.
>
> What do you think? Cabinets are built that way, why not tables?
"Toller" wrote in message
> Well, I think I agree with dadiOH that it will have adequate strength; but
> after looking at other tables and cabinets, I also agree with Mark and
Josh
> that it won't look right. Grain always runs the long way, but on these it
> will run the short way. Since ribbon figure is pretty striking, the
effect
> will be pronounced.
This is done on table aprons on a lot of period pieces, particularly French,
but is always veneered. If you really want the look of vertical grain, that
is the way to do it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I picked up some 50" "shorts". After making the top and the shelf I will
> have some really wide short scraps left over. I could use them to make
> the side pieces, so that the grain direction will be the same as the top
> and shelf. I realize that they will be much weaker than if the grain ran
> the other way, but it would allow me to glue the top and shelf in since
> movement would not be an issue. I "think" that would add more strength
> than the sides would take away.
Nope, reason it's not done is that if you get the slightest racking stress,
you crack your short-grained "apron." Now if you had full-length aprons -
all the way to the floor, box or dovetail carcass joinery would be fine.
Take a 1 1/2 piece a foot long and smack it in the middle. Dollars to
dogturds it breaks.
In article <[email protected]>, George@least says...
> Nope, reason it's not done is that if you get the slightest racking stress,
> you crack your short-grained "apron." Now if you had full-length aprons -
> all the way to the floor, box or dovetail carcass joinery would be fine.
>
>
> Take a 1 1/2 piece a foot long and smack it in the middle. Dollars to
> dogturds it breaks.
Aside from the strength issues, it will just look somewhat "wrong".
Even if people can't put their finger on it, something will just feel
off about the table. Certainly mahogany grain will not be as pronounced
as the butternut or a wood like oak, so perhaps it won't be too
noticeable.
Toller wrote:
> I built the table below to donate to a charity auction (hopefully it
> will bring more than the cost of the wood...). We are storing it our
> living room temporarily, and my wife wants another one just like it;
> only in mahogany rather than butternut.
>
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
>
> I picked up some 50" "shorts". After making the top and the shelf I
> will have some really wide short scraps left over. I could use them
> to make the side pieces, so that the grain direction will be the same
> as the top and shelf. I realize that they will be much weaker than
> if the grain ran the other way, but it would allow me to glue the top
> and shelf in since movement would not be an issue. I "think" that
> would add more strength than the sides would take away.
Everybody else seems to think that vertical grain ends are going to
introduce "strength" problems. The table is small and the two aprons on
each end are supported by spindles between them, the legs and by the top
or shelf.
It is true that the table would be weaker than it would be if the apron
was "normal" but how strong does a table like this have to be? I
guarantee you that what you propose isn't going to have any practical
effect.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Toller wrote:
> I picked up some 50" "shorts". After making the top and the shelf I
> will have some really wide short scraps left over. I could use them
> to make the side pieces, so that the grain direction will be the same
> as the top and shelf. I realize that they will be much weaker than
> if the grain ran the other way, but it would allow me to glue the top
> and shelf in since movement would not be an issue. I "think" that
> would add more strength than the sides would take away.
>
> What do you think?
I think it would be OK
_________
> Cabinets are built that way, why not tables?
Cabinets have bigger sides?
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I built the table below to donate to a charity auction (hopefully it will
>bring more than the cost of the wood...). We are storing it our living
>room temporarily, and my wife wants another one just like it; only in
>mahogany rather than butternut.
>
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
>
> I picked up some 50" "shorts". After making the top and the shelf I will
> have some really wide short scraps left over. I could use them to make
> the side pieces, so that the grain direction will be the same as the top
> and shelf. I realize that they will be much weaker than if the grain ran
> the other way, but it would allow me to glue the top and shelf in since
> movement would not be an issue. I "think" that would add more strength
> than the sides would take away.
>
> What do you think? Cabinets are built that way, why not tables?
>
Well, I think I agree with dadiOH that it will have adequate strength; but
after looking at other tables and cabinets, I also agree with Mark and Josh
that it won't look right. Grain always runs the long way, but on these it
will run the short way. Since ribbon figure is pretty striking, the effect
will be pronounced.
As a fall back position, how about using botton side pieces perpendicular to
the top, but using the cut off scraps for the top side pieces; gluing the
top down, but letting the shelf float?
There will be no movement between the top and the sides, so that will be
fine.
The top side pieces will have movement of 1/8", but the bottom side pieces
will not move. That will be about a 1 degree flex, but it will be split
between the two sides, so it will be 1/2 degree on each side. Is that close
enough to nothing to not bother the joints? I was planning on gluing and
pocket screwing them.