With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.
When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.
Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?
I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 12:03:36 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> On 1/29/2019 5:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:35:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> >> On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
> >>> says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
> >>> don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
> >>> "the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
> >>> "correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
> >>> outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?
> >>>
> >>> In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
> >>> mean that it's set up correctly.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
> >>>> it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
> >>>> and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
> >>>> these are fixed, too...
> >>
> >>> There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
> >>> up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
> >>>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Well, if works, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.
> >>
> >
> > Your supposition only holds true if the answer to your question is "yes".
> >
> > The issue is that I don't know if "it works" or not.
> >
> > Let's start from the beginning.
> >
> > This is my first planer and my first use of a planer. I jumped right into
> > it. I built a planing sled so that I could flatten some twisted boards.
> > The sled is flat and level, my board is supported so that it doesn't rock.
> >
> > (The end closest to the planer touching the sled, the far end shimmed and
> > secured.)
> >
> > I marked the full length of the board so that I would know when the entire
> > length had been planed flat. Supposedly, once all the marks are gone, I
> > should be able to flip the board over and it should lay completely flat on
> > the sled. The problem is that when I flip it over, the "far end", the end
> > that was shimmed, does not touch the sled. There is a gap between the sled
> > and that end of the board. (It's not the result of snipe. The gap extends
> > beyond the little area of snipe at the end of the board.)
> >
> > This happened on 2 different boards, so it's either my technique, my sled,
> > or my planer. OK, so I made a smaller sled, tried a shorter board and got
> > the same results. That leaves my technique or the planer. My technique matches
> > what I've seen on youtube and read about, so I think that leaves my planer.
> >
> > That's when the I started looking at the planer and seeing what I could
> > find out. That's when I tried my push test. That's when I found that the
> > back roller was presenting an obstacle. That's when I posted my question.
> >
> > Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
> > haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
> > long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
> > my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
> > trying to determine what is causing the problem.
> >
> > Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
> > some answers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> If you are sending twisted boards through a planer you get twisted
> results. You need to run the twisted boards through the planer on a
> sled longer than the boards. AND you need yo chock the boards with
> small wedges so that they, the boards, do not move while going through
> the planer.
Everything you've mentioned has been done. The shims have been secured to the
board and sled with either hot glue or double sided tape. The board doesn't rock,
flex or move on the sled.
On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:18:51 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> FWIW the sled you have and the one I am talking about are completely
>> different. My sled travels through the planer at the same rate as the
>> work.
>
> Not true.
>
> Start at the top of the pile.
My mistake, sorry. I did not want to go through tall of the redundancy
from the beginning.
I thought the sled was the melamine part and that you simply had lumber
sitting on top. I now see that the large piece has the stop on the far
end. ;~)
>
> 1 - Poplar board that I want to flatten
> 2 - 2" thick sled, with the stop at the front end so the poplar board pushes
> it along at the same rate
> 3 - 1.5" thick particle board/melamine bed, used as an extension table
>
> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
>> I use the wedges to keep the work from moving up or down, because
>> of bow or twist, between the sled and the work.
>
> As do I and as I've mentioned numerous times. The shims/wedges are just not
> shown in the picture because I was just trying to show the table, sled, etc.
>
> I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
> guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
> is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
> differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
> have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
> going to have to trust me...or not.
>
Got it! LOL sorry you had to repeat yourself to me, again.
If you are continuing to have issues it is probably a situation where
you are going to be wasting time trying to get more out of a bench top
planer. I never expected my bench top planer to do anything besides
change the thickness of a "flat" board.
AND FWIW flattening a board on my 15" stationary planer is not a
pleasurable thing either. Technically that is the job of a jointer but
that is another story.
Moving the sled and work with out disturbing the shims takes
considerably more time and effort than it is worth, for me.
DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> writes:
>On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>As shown below, I am using an extended table for support and a sled for the
>actually flattening process. The only thing not shown in the image is the
>shims/wedges. Rest assured that I am shimming the boards solid to prevent
>rocking and flexing. The image is just an example of the set-up in response
>to dpb's request to see it.
>
>https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
>>
>> The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
>> into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
>> warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
>> through the planer.
>
>Agreed. But is it possible that they could *screw up* the flattening if they
>were misaligned or applying uneven pressure?
>
>That is basically been the question that I have been trying to get an
>answer to.
If the cutter knives are coplanar to the table, misaligned infeed/outfeed
rollers should have no effect on the cut; assuming the stock can't shift
on the carrier board during the pass.
I'm not familiar with the Wen brand, so can't offer much else.
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-5, Markem wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:24:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> >infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> >pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> >through.
> >
> >When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> >roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> >go under the outfeed roller.
> >
> >Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> >assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> >wood?
> >
> >I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
> >I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
> >The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
>
> Try setting as you have, but back it off that 1/32" before you feed???
You obviously missed the point of my post. My process was just a test. With the planer running
the board feeds through fine.
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 5:03:04 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 2/2/2019 3:31 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
> > Remember, too, you're looking for minute details...a few thou here and a
> > few thou there can add up to real... :)
>
> Actually, another thought came to me after posting.
>
> Are there bed rollers on this little guy? How much above the table are
> they sitting if so?
>
> Possibly the last few inches compresses your bed board from being about
> in line with them to the table when there's not a long run of the sled
> but only the last few inches. That _might_ explain why most of the
> problem appears in the last few inches of the cut...
>
No bed rollers.
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 1:42:13 AM UTC-5, Jerry Osage wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to flatten the
> >long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
> >my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
> >trying to determine what is causing the problem.
> >
> Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
> If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
> --
> Jerry O.
Yes.
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:28:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> > infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> > pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> > through.
> >
> > When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> > roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> > go under the outfeed roller.
> >
> > Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> > assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> > wood?
> ...
>
> It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
> the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.
Just to be clear, it's only a barrier with the planer off. When the board is fed into the
planet with the power on, it does not stop at the back roller.
>
> I've never had one of the "lunchbox" small planers so I can't speak for
> their precise adjustment processes, but every planer I've ever had or
> used has detailed setup instructions that give precise measurements and
> steps for adjustments.
The only adjustment given is an adjustment to prevent tapered cuts by ensuring
that the roller assembly is parallel to the bed in a side-to-side manner.
I will check that, but I don't think that that is what I am curious about. My question
in more about front-to-back.
>
> They also have the outfeed rollers spring-loaded so to account for the
> difference in thickness between taking off a thin shaving vis a vis a
> full cut.
>
> But, the unloaded position has to be high enough the infeed rollers have
> enough "oomph" to get it under the outfeed roller so it can do its job;
> if it's too low or the infeed doesn't have enough grip, then you can
> have the issue.
Again, with the power on, the infeed roller has no problem pushing the board
hard enough for the outfeed roller to grab it. It's only with the power off that I
notice the board stop when it reaches the outfeed roller.
>
> I've been told these little guys don't have it, but it's also possible
> with a "real" planer that the pressure bar is too low and the board will l
> hit or drag on it.
>
> Another alternative on the cast iron machines I'm used to is that the
> rear bed rollers may be too high but I understand these guys don't have
> them, either???
No pressure bar, no bed rollers.
>
> What is the particular planer you have?
>
WEN Model 6550, 12.5 inch.
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 7:59:06 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 2/2/2019 4:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 4:31:15 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> >> On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
> >>> guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
> >>> is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
> >>> differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
> >>> have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
> >>> going to have to trust me...or not.
> >>
> >> Other way 'round ... not that we don't "trust"; you came asking for help
> >> and from afar, _seeeing_ pictures of how you had the set up when you
> >> actually tried to make a trial run is the only way we can see if
> >> something shows up to us that didn't to you.
> >>
> >> Your choice of how far to try to push the long-distance diagnostics but
> >> the clearly obvious seems to have mostly been eliminated (other than the
> >> very first basic test I suggested to prove the planer itself is doing
> >> what it's supposed to).
> >>
> >> Remember, too, you're looking for minute details...a few thou here and a
> >> few thou there can add up to real... :)
> >>
> >
> > All true, no argument.
> >
> > As far as "the planer doing what it is supposed to do" I have another 'test'
> > question, as in "should it be doing this".
> >
> > I was doing some basic thickness planing today. Assume a board that was
> > already flat. 8/4 x 3.5" x 26", S2S.
> >
> > I need to get it down to 1.5" thickness. I sneak up on the cut, half a
> > handle turn at a time (should be 1/32") Eventually the rollers grab the
> > board and pull it through without actually cutting anything. Another half
> > turn and I hear a full length planing sound. So far so good.
> >
> > The question: If I pass the board through again, *without turning the handle*,
> > should I hear a full length planing sound? If I then pass it through again,
> > *without turning the handle*, should I once again hear a full length planing
> > sound?
> >
> > I have found that I can pass the board through at least 3 times and still
> > hear it cutting. The sound is a little quieter each time, but there's no
> > doubt that it's more than just the rollers pulling it through.
> >
> > Since it's a narrow board, I tried passing it through the middle, the left
> > and the right to see if it made any difference, but as far as I can tell, it
> > doesn't.
> >
> > Should it be making a planing sound on up to 3 passes even when the head
> > has not been lowered?
>
> That's a sign of what I've been thinking has to be with the little
> planers; even in the big boys like the PM 180 there is _some_ mechanical
> play in the various pieces in the planer itself; from the lash in the
> height adjusting mechanism to the yield of the bed and head supports
> plus what small compression there is in the workpiece itself as it goes
> through. All of these effects add up; they're normal and basically
> unavoidable no matter what the machine, only how much is dependent on
> just how well-built and stiff the machine itself is constructed.
>
> Do you have precise-enough calipers to measure the difference in
> material thickness between such passes? For "ordinary" woodworking, it
> would be within normal tolerances so it really isn't anything of a deal,
> whether with your particular machine and the off-center work it
> contributes, I really don't see that effect being the one that would
> cause the end effect that you seem to be experiencing.
>
> In short, it's normal to an extent, a second pass on the PM180 is
> essentially knife-clearance except for a knot or somesuch. Of course,
> it weighs 1670 lb, too... :)
>
> --dpb
Both of my calipers supposedly measure down to 1/2 a thousandth. Are they truly accurate at
that level? I can't tell because even they don't agree at that level of precision - not that I
actually care. I'm building a bench, not an artificial heart. ;-)
At the 1/64 setting, it does not appear that any measurable amount is being removed although,
honestly, I haven't checked every time at every location of the bed. Maybe when the bench is
done I'll play some more.
I agree that that behavior is unrelated to the flattening issue. There was no intent to connect
the two situations.
Thanks again.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
> > >backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
> > >workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
> > >the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
> > >rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
> > >flex, too, without additional support.
> > >
> > Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
> > tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
> >
> > Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
> > they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
> > my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
> > last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
> > the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
> > end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
> > --
> > Jerry O.
>
> Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
feed side? That's what I've been using.
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:30:53 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
> > what my question is. Should it be?
>
> Went and looked and I'd actually forgotten on the Model 13 both are set
> the same height, only the compression spring is adjustable.
>
> <http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1141/18135.pdf>
>
> shows how a planer is designed to work and has some very useful
> description of usage that is applicable for any.
>
> Now I don't know about these little guys...well, gargle,gargle...oh!
> there actually is a manual! It says right there
>
> "The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
> and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."
That's exactly what the manual for my planer says.
The thing is, they might as well have added the words "are supposed to be",
as in "infeed and outfeed rollers *are supposed to be* adjusted to the
correct height".
That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
"the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
"correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?
In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
mean that it's set up correctly.
>
> Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
> it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
> and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
> these are fixed, too...
There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
>
> Inspection of the way the thing is constructed should answer the
> question, but I'm guessing there is no adjustment provided to change the
> position.
>
> <https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1078112/Wen-6550.html?page=16#manual>
>
I figured that anyone who had a planer similar to mine (e.g. lunchbox)
could try my simple test and let me know what theirs does.
The company I shall call.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:10:59 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
>> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
>> > >backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
>> > >workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
>> > >the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
>> > >rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
>> > >flex, too, without additional support.
>> > >
>> > Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
>> > tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
>> >
>> > Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
>> > they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
>> > my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
>> > last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
>> > the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
>> > end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
>> > --
>> > Jerry O.
>>
>> Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
>
>How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
>feed side? That's what I've been using.
>
Yes, that is my solution also. I was suggesting that the OP might have a
similar problem.
--
Jerry O.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 11:09:00 PM UTC-5, Jerry Osage wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:10:59 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
> >> > >backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
> >> > >workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
> >> > >the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
> >> > >rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
> >> > >flex, too, without additional support.
> >> > >
> >> > Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
> >> > tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
> >> >
> >> > Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
> >> > they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
> >> > my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
> >> > last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
> >> > the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
> >> > end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
> >> > --
> >> > Jerry O.
> >>
> >> Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
> >
> >How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
> >feed side? That's what I've been using.
> >
> Yes, that is my solution also. I was suggesting that the OP might have a
> similar problem.
I *am* the OP.
I am already using what you suggested.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
> >backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
> >workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
> >the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
> >rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
> >flex, too, without additional support.
> >
> Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
> tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
>
> Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
> they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
> my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
> last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
> the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
> end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
> --
> Jerry O.
Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:25:52 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/29/2019 6:17 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
> > I recommend to get some scrap stock of decent thickness, joint one face
> > flat and then run it through the planer several times.
> >
> > It should subsequently measure identically the same thickness at all
> > four corners.
> ...
>
> And, keep the same orientation each pass -- several passes in the same
> orientation will let you determine a very small misalignment that isn't
> apparent on only one or two by compounding the error each pass. Wider
> stock is better test material, too, of course...
>
> --
If I had a jointer, I would do that.
I'll have to have friend do that for me. Maybe even take the planer to his shop and compare
my results to his.
Nothing will happen until at least next week, so this is going on hold for a few days. Thanks
for the suggestions so far.
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:01:12 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/30/2019 12:41 AM, Jerry Osage wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to flatten the
> >> long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
> >> my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
> >> trying to determine what is causing the problem.
> >>
> > Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
> > If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
>
> At least, and depending on the thickness of the stock and the material,
> perhaps will need far more than that to take any flexing out of the
> workpiece itself as it goes through. Planers exert quite a _lot_ of
> downward force and wood is an elastic material.
>
> Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
> mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
> when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
> twisted material going through the planer. D-D may simply be deforming
> the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
> strongly enough for the task.
>
> The plain planing (so to speak :) ) exercise will at least eliminate
> that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
> across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
> arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.
>
> But if his stock he's trying to straighten is 4/4 or less, it's going to
> take a really solid support all along the length to keep it from just
> bowing as it goes through...why I've rarely in 50 years done the
> exercise for other than heavy stock--it's just too much bother given
> there are better ways to rough prepare the material first or just use
> better material from the git-go and find other uses for the specific
> material. Unless it's a really exotic, high-priced or truly remarkable
> in some other way, the result just is rarely worth the effort in my book.
>
8/4 poplar. I doubt it's flexing.
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:18:51 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
> FWIW the sled you have and the one I am talking about are completely
> different. My sled travels through the planer at the same rate as the
> work.
Not true.
Start at the top of the pile.
1 - Poplar board that I want to flatten
2 - 2" thick sled, with the stop at the front end so the poplar board pushes
it along at the same rate
3 - 1.5" thick particle board/melamine bed, used as an extension table
https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
> I use the wedges to keep the work from moving up or down, because
> of bow or twist, between the sled and the work.
As do I and as I've mentioned numerous times. The shims/wedges are just not
shown in the picture because I was just trying to show the table, sled, etc.
I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
going to have to trust me...or not.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I'm trying to flatten the
>long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
>my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
>trying to determine what is causing the problem.
>
Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
--
Jerry O.
On 2/1/2019 10:26 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/31/2019 3:10 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
>>>>>> backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
>>>>>> workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
>>>>>> the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
>>>>>> rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
>>>>>> flex, too, without additional support.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
>>>>> tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
>>>>> they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
>>>>> my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
>>>>> last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
>>>>> the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
>>>>> end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jerry O.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
>>>
>>> How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
>>> feed side? That's what I've been using.
>>>
>>
>> If your board has a twist or bow, as mentioned in another part of this
>> thread, a 100' long in feed and out feed will be of no help to
>> straighten/flatten the work. The work has to be supported where the
>> board bows up or twists up. I use small wedges between the
>> twisted/bowed work and a sled longer than the work.
>
> Yes, I know that. I was simply responding to Micheal's comment about an
> extended table by noting that I am already using one. While it, by itself,
> does nothing to flatten the board, it does provide support for the sled.
> When using a 6' sled and 8/4 boards like I am, it's nice to have a few feet
> of solid support before and after the planer instead of relying on the
> relatively short planer infeed and outfeed tables.
OK, ;~) Actually I have a 15" stationary planer with fold up/down in
feed and out feed rollers/tables that are about 2' long. They work just
fine and I do not worry with them being on the exact same plane as the
planer bed/table.
FWIW the sled you have and the one I am talking about are completely
different. My sled travels through the planer at the same rate as the
work. I use the wedges to keep the work from moving up or down, because
of bow or twist, between the sled and the work.
>
> As shown below, I am using an extended table for support and a sled for the
> actually flattening process. The only thing not shown in the image is the
> shims/wedges. Rest assured that I am shimming the boards solid to prevent
> rocking and flexing. The image is just an example of the set-up in response
> to dpb's request to see it.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
>>
>> The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
>> into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
>> warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
>> through the planer.
>
> Agreed. But is it possible that they could *screw up* the flattening if they
> were misaligned or applying uneven pressure?
No, as long as they are in constant contact with the work, preventing
the work from lifting.
You have a constant indexing point, the bed/table of the planer. As
long as the cutter and bed are parallel to each other there should be no
issue with screwing up a cut. Think of ripping a board on your table
saw. You have the constant indexing point, the fence, that keeps the
distance between the blade and the fence constant. Your hands, that
work like in feed rollers, contentiously apply "different" pressure as
you feed the work. This done properly does not affect the width of the
cut.
IF the in feed and or out feed rollers are high or low on one end the
cut will remain the same as long as the cutter and the bed of the planer
are parallel. A high or low, on one end, in feed or out feed might
cause the work to not go straight through the planer as it feeds but
that does not normally affect the thickness of the cut either. It is
seldom that boards go straight through a planer.
>
> That is basically been the question that I have been trying to get an
> answer to.
>
On 1/29/2019 5:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:35:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
>>> says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
>>> don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
>>> "the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
>>> "correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
>>> outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?
>>>
>>> In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
>>> mean that it's set up correctly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
>>>> it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
>>>> and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
>>>> these are fixed, too...
>>>
>>> There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
>>> up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
>>>
>> ...
>>
>> Well, if works, doesn't it?
>>
>> Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.
>>
>
> Your supposition only holds true if the answer to your question is "yes".
>
> The issue is that I don't know if "it works" or not.
>
> Let's start from the beginning.
>
> This is my first planer and my first use of a planer. I jumped right into
> it. I built a planing sled so that I could flatten some twisted boards.
> The sled is flat and level, my board is supported so that it doesn't rock.
>
> (The end closest to the planer touching the sled, the far end shimmed and
> secured.)
>
> I marked the full length of the board so that I would know when the entire
> length had been planed flat. Supposedly, once all the marks are gone, I
> should be able to flip the board over and it should lay completely flat on
> the sled. The problem is that when I flip it over, the "far end", the end
> that was shimmed, does not touch the sled. There is a gap between the sled
> and that end of the board. (It's not the result of snipe. The gap extends
> beyond the little area of snipe at the end of the board.)
>
> This happened on 2 different boards, so it's either my technique, my sled,
> or my planer. OK, so I made a smaller sled, tried a shorter board and got
> the same results. That leaves my technique or the planer. My technique matches
> what I've seen on youtube and read about, so I think that leaves my planer.
>
> That's when the I started looking at the planer and seeing what I could
> find out. That's when I tried my push test. That's when I found that the
> back roller was presenting an obstacle. That's when I posted my question.
>
> Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
> haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
> long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
> my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
> trying to determine what is causing the problem.
>
> Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
> some answers.
>
>
>
>
>
If you are sending twisted boards through a planer you get twisted
results. You need to run the twisted boards through the planer on a
sled longer than the boards. AND you need yo chock the boards with
small wedges so that they, the boards, do not move while going through
the planer.
On 1/31/2019 3:10 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
>>>> backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
>>>> workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
>>>> the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
>>>> rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
>>>> flex, too, without additional support.
>>>>
>>> Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
>>> tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
>>>
>>> Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
>>> they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
>>> my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
>>> last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
>>> the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
>>> end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
>>> --
>>> Jerry O.
>>
>> Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
>
> How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
> feed side? That's what I've been using.
>
If your board has a twist or bow, as mentioned in another part of this
thread, a 100' long in feed and out feed will be of no help to
straighten/flatten the work. The work has to be supported where the
board bows up or twists up. I use small wedges between the
twisted/bowed work and a sled longer than the work.
The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
through the planer.
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:07:21 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/28/2019 7:01 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:28:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> >> On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>> With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> >>> infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> >>> pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> >>> through.
> >>>
> >>> When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> >>> roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> >>> go under the outfeed roller.
> >>>
> >>> Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> >>> assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> >>> wood?
> >> ...
> >>
> >> It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
> >> the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.
> >
> > Just to be clear, it's only a barrier with the planer off. When the board is fed into the
> > planet with the power on, it does not stop at the back roller.
> ...
>
> > Again, with the power on, the infeed roller has no problem pushing the board
> > hard enough for the outfeed roller to grab it. It's only with the power off that I
> > notice the board stop when it reaches the outfeed roller.
> >
> ...
>
> Well, why would you do that???? Of COURSE it will hit the outfeed
> roller; how else could it possibly have enough friction applied to do
> any good when planing?
>
See my response to Mike. I provided a some more detail as to what I am
doing and what happens.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ....
>
> > If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
> > or my technique, just let me know.
> >
> >
> > https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
> In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.
>
> What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
> planing pass.
Other than me feeding the sled in and retrieving it on the way out, what aren't
you seeing? Should I post a link to a video? ;-)
That's the setup. What do you think is missing? Is it just the shims? If you
want me to insert shims and then take the picture again, I can, but I kind of
think that that would be a waste of time. On the twisted boards that I'm
actually trying to flatten, I am shimming the gaps both to eliminate any
rocking and fill them in to prevent flex.
>
> You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
> difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
> the angle is <0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
> any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
> gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
> flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
> for any movement whatsoever.
The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".
As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
than 2'.
In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.
>
> And, even though it is 8/4 material, poplar is quite soft/limber as
> compared to, say, oak, so I would totally eliminate some flex there.
>
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:04:19 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/31/2019 6:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> >> On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> ....
> >>
> >>> If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
> >>> or my technique, just let me know.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
> >>
> >> In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.
> >>
> >> What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
> >> planing pass.
> >
> > Other than me feeding the sled in and retrieving it on the way out, what aren't
> > you seeing? Should I post a link to a video? ;-)
>
> Something's moving but we've no way to tell what from static picture so
> that _might_ be of some help, yes. Of course, from afar, it might not
> be, either; no way to predict, really.
Unfortunately, the provisions of my WITSEC arrangement prevent me from
posting pictures or videos of myself online. ;-)
>
>
> > That's the setup. What do you think is missing? Is it just the shims? If you
> > want me to insert shims and then take the picture again, I can, but I kind of
> > think that that would be a waste of time. On the twisted boards that I'm
> > actually trying to flatten, I am shimming the gaps both to eliminate any
> > rocking and fill them in to prevent flex.
>
> I don't think it would be a waste of time, no. Seeing just how you
> shimmed it and what's holding what how could be a klew...then again, as
> above, from afar, "maybe not!" but you've not found it so far on your
> own, so what can it hurt?
As I'm sure you know, every board has a different twist, warp or bow, so
showing you how I would shim the board in the image might satisfy that
situation, but none other.
In this case, I would clamp the front of the board to the infeed end of
the sled and use increasing thinner shims, starting at the highest point
of the trailing end, filling in all gaps on all sides. The shims would be
held in place with either hot glue or double sided tape. Once shimmed, I
would remove the clamp and check for any rocking, flexing or sliding.
Again, as I'm sure you know, there are many youtube's showing the flattening
process, including the shimming part. I'm doing what they are doing.
>
> >>
> >> You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
> >> difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
> >> the angle is <0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
> >> any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
> >> gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
> >> flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
> >> for any movement whatsoever.
> >
> > The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".
> >
> > As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
> > things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
> > than 2'.
> >
> > In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
> > 1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
> > outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
> > don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
> > I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.
>
> That tells me _something_ pretty major is happening that last foot,
> then, and the video _might_ show it. I'm still curious about just what
> the real stiffness of the machine itself is...I'll admit I've never used
> one of the lunchbox planers "in anger" so I really don't have anything
> to compare to but heavy iron but I've looked at various models in the
> stores and they just look too flimsy for real work to me. I'm
> suspicious something in the planer itself is giving with an irregular
> geometry.
>
I'm with you on that suspicion.
OK, thanks for hanging in here as long as you have. I'm going to give this
a rest for a while. I have enough flattened and thickness-planned boards to
actually start building the bench for my daughter. All twisted boards were
cut 10 - 12" inches longer than needed just to be safe, so lopping off the
thinner end is not an issue - for this project, at least. I wouldn't try
this with an expensive/limited amount piece of wood until a solution is
found, but for now it's time to get building.
Thanks again.
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 4:31:15 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
> > guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
> > is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
> > differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
> > have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
> > going to have to trust me...or not.
>
> Other way 'round ... not that we don't "trust"; you came asking for help
> and from afar, _seeeing_ pictures of how you had the set up when you
> actually tried to make a trial run is the only way we can see if
> something shows up to us that didn't to you.
>
> Your choice of how far to try to push the long-distance diagnostics but
> the clearly obvious seems to have mostly been eliminated (other than the
> very first basic test I suggested to prove the planer itself is doing
> what it's supposed to).
>
> Remember, too, you're looking for minute details...a few thou here and a
> few thou there can add up to real... :)
>
All true, no argument.
As far as "the planer doing what it is supposed to do" I have another 'test'
question, as in "should it be doing this".
I was doing some basic thickness planing today. Assume a board that was
already flat. 8/4 x 3.5" x 26", S2S.
I need to get it down to 1.5" thickness. I sneak up on the cut, half a
handle turn at a time (should be 1/32") Eventually the rollers grab the
board and pull it through without actually cutting anything. Another half
turn and I hear a full length planing sound. So far so good.
The question: If I pass the board through again, *without turning the handle*,
should I hear a full length planing sound? If I then pass it through again,
*without turning the handle*, should I once again hear a full length planing
sound?
I have found that I can pass the board through at least 3 times and still
hear it cutting. The sound is a little quieter each time, but there's no
doubt that it's more than just the rollers pulling it through.
Since it's a narrow board, I tried passing it through the middle, the left
and the right to see if it made any difference, but as far as I can tell, it
doesn't.
Should it be making a planing sound on up to 3 passes even when the head
has not been lowered?
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 9:25:00 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> through.
>
> When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> go under the outfeed roller.
>
> Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> wood?
>
> I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
> I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
> The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
Could it be as simple as the outfeed table not being level or at least co-planar with the planer bed?
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 3:49:46 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
> "Leon" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:18:51 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> FWIW the sled you have and the one I am talking about are completely
> >> different. My sled travels through the planer at the same rate as the
> >> work.
> >
> > Not true.
> >
> > Start at the top of the pile.
>
>
> >>>My mistake, sorry. I did not want to go through tall of the redundancy
> from the beginning.
>
> >>>I thought the sled was the melamine part and that you simply had lumber
> sitting on top. I now see that the large piece has the stop on the far
> end. ;~)
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 1 - Poplar board that I want to flatten
> > 2 - 2" thick sled, with the stop at the front end so the poplar board
> > pushes
> > it along at the same rate
> > 3 - 1.5" thick particle board/melamine bed, used as an extension table
> >
> > https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
> >
> >> I use the wedges to keep the work from moving up or down, because
> >> of bow or twist, between the sled and the work.
> >
> > As do I and as I've mentioned numerous times. The shims/wedges are just
> > not
> > shown in the picture because I was just trying to show the table, sled,
> > etc.
> >
> > I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
> > guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
> > is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
> > differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
> > have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
> > going to have to trust me...or not.
> >
>
>
> <>>>Got it! LOL sorry you had to repeat yourself to me, again.
>
> >>>If you are continuing to have issues it is probably a situation where
> you are going to be wasting time trying to get more out of a bench top
> planer. I never expected my bench top planer to do anything besides
> change the thickness of a "flat" board.
>
> >>>AND FWIW flattening a board on my 15" stationary planer is not a
> pleasurable thing either. Technically that is the job of a jointer but
> that is another story.
>
> >>>Moving the sled and work with out disturbing the shims takes
> considerably more time and effort than it is worth, for me.
>
> ===============================================
> Two thoughts
> Does your planer have a head lock for the height? If not, this could be why
> you can make 3 passes at one setting. Each pass takes off less material and
> thus can deflect the head less.
No head lock.
>
> In regard to the sled. Could you try planing a twisted board that is
> significantly shorter than the sled.
Please define "significantly shorter". My sled is 6'.
> If the sled is tilting this would then
> happen after the board has gone completely through.
I assume you mean tilting on the way out, thus pushing the tail end
of the board up. (If not, please explain) I have considered that as
possible cause from the very beginning, therefore...
I have been extremely diligent in preventing that from happening. The
extended table gives me lots of time to walk to the other side of the
planer to be ready to support the sled long before the tail end of
the board is even under the head. In fact, I've been *lifting* the
front of the sled even though there is no indication that the melamine
extended bed is sagging.
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> On 1/31/2019 3:10 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
> >>>> backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
> >>>> workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
> >>>> the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
> >>>> rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
> >>>> flex, too, without additional support.
> >>>>
> >>> Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
> >>> tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
> >>>
> >>> Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
> >>> they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
> >>> my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
> >>> last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
> >>> the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
> >>> end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
> >>> --
> >>> Jerry O.
> >>
> >> Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
> >
> > How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
> > feed side? That's what I've been using.
> >
>
> If your board has a twist or bow, as mentioned in another part of this
> thread, a 100' long in feed and out feed will be of no help to
> straighten/flatten the work. The work has to be supported where the
> board bows up or twists up. I use small wedges between the
> twisted/bowed work and a sled longer than the work.
Yes, I know that. I was simply responding to Micheal's comment about an
extended table by noting that I am already using one. While it, by itself,
does nothing to flatten the board, it does provide support for the sled.
When using a 6' sled and 8/4 boards like I am, it's nice to have a few feet
of solid support before and after the planer instead of relying on the
relatively short planer infeed and outfeed tables.
As shown below, I am using an extended table for support and a sled for the
actually flattening process. The only thing not shown in the image is the
shims/wedges. Rest assured that I am shimming the boards solid to prevent
rocking and flexing. The image is just an example of the set-up in response
to dpb's request to see it.
https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
> The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
> into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
> warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
> through the planer.
Agreed. But is it possible that they could *screw up* the flattening if they
were misaligned or applying uneven pressure?
That is basically been the question that I have been trying to get an
answer to.
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:35:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
> > says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
> > don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
> > "the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
> > "correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
> > outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?
> >
> > In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
> > mean that it's set up correctly.
> >
> >>
> >> Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
> >> it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
> >> and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
> >> these are fixed, too...
> >
> > There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
> > up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
> >
> ...
>
> Well, if works, doesn't it?
>
> Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.
>
Your supposition only holds true if the answer to your question is "yes".
The issue is that I don't know if "it works" or not.
Let's start from the beginning.
This is my first planer and my first use of a planer. I jumped right into
it. I built a planing sled so that I could flatten some twisted boards.
The sled is flat and level, my board is supported so that it doesn't rock.
(The end closest to the planer touching the sled, the far end shimmed and
secured.)
I marked the full length of the board so that I would know when the entire
length had been planed flat. Supposedly, once all the marks are gone, I
should be able to flip the board over and it should lay completely flat on
the sled. The problem is that when I flip it over, the "far end", the end
that was shimmed, does not touch the sled. There is a gap between the sled
and that end of the board. (It's not the result of snipe. The gap extends
beyond the little area of snipe at the end of the board.)
This happened on 2 different boards, so it's either my technique, my sled,
or my planer. OK, so I made a smaller sled, tried a shorter board and got
the same results. That leaves my technique or the planer. My technique matches
what I've seen on youtube and read about, so I think that leaves my planer.
That's when the I started looking at the planer and seeing what I could
find out. That's when I tried my push test. That's when I found that the
back roller was presenting an obstacle. That's when I posted my question.
Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
trying to determine what is causing the problem.
Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
some answers.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-6, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
> > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
> > > >backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
> > > >workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
> > > >the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
> > > >rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
> > > >flex, too, without additional support.
> > > >
> > > Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
> > > tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
> > >
> > > Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
> > > they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
> > > my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
> > > last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
> > > the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
> > > end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
> > > --
> > > Jerry O.
> >
> > Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.
>
> How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
> feed side? That's what I've been using.
Sounds like it should work. I will say the last time I had problems with a twisted piece of lumber that would not get flat, I ended up knocking off the high spots with a jack plane so that it laid solid on the sled without shims. That really did the trick.
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> On 1/31/2019 5:35 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:01:12 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2019 12:41 AM, Jerry Osage wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm trying to flatten the
> >>>> long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
> >>>> my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
> >>>> trying to determine what is causing the problem.
> >>>>
> >>> Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
> >>> If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
> >>
> >> At least, and depending on the thickness of the stock and the material,
> >> perhaps will need far more than that to take any flexing out of the
> >> workpiece itself as it goes through. Planers exert quite a _lot_ of
> >> downward force and wood is an elastic material.
> >>
> >> Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
> >> mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
> >> when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
> >> twisted material going through the planer. D-D may simply be deforming
> >> the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
> >> strongly enough for the task.
> >>
> >> The plain planing (so to speak :) ) exercise will at least eliminate
> >> that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
> >> across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
> >> arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.
> >>
> >> But if his stock he's trying to straighten is 4/4 or less, it's going to
> >> take a really solid support all along the length to keep it from just
> >> bowing as it goes through...why I've rarely in 50 years done the
> >> exercise for other than heavy stock--it's just too much bother given
> >> there are better ways to rough prepare the material first or just use
> >> better material from the git-go and find other uses for the specific
> >> material. Unless it's a really exotic, high-priced or truly remarkable
> >> in some other way, the result just is rarely worth the effort in my book.
> >>
> >
> > 8/4 poplar. I doubt it's flexing.
>
> I reread the long tale of woe...is the apparent problem only the
> trailing end seems to be having too much taken off if the problem is
> that part seems too much removed if I understand what you wrote?
Yes.
>
> How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
> backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
> workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
> the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
> rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
> flex, too, without additional support.
>
Please read this (carefully) and *then* follow the image link below. I
believe that I have addressed all of your concerns.
1 - The first thing I did was support the planer's metal infeed and outfeed
tables to prevent flex. (The 2x4's seen on the cart. There is one on both
sides of the planer. They are screwed to the cart so they can not move.)
2 - My first attempt at flattening a twisted board was to use the 1.5"
particle board seen in the picture as the sled itself. When the results
were less than satisfactory (thinner trailing edge) I decided to use the
particle board as an extended table instead and to make a different sled.
The extended table is supported by roller stands on both sides of the planer
and checked for level and flatness multiple times before and during use. I
also ensured that it did not flex downward on the outfeed end by using an
angle finder:
http://aircraftproducts.wicksaircraft.com/ImgMedium/angle_finder_plus_level.jpg
3 - I then used the pine sled you see in the image below which was also
verified flat and true to the best of my abilities. (6' steel rule, 6' foot
aluminum level, my table saw table, the particle board sled once it was
verified to be flat, etc. It showed to be flat and true every time.)
4 - To prevent the tail end of the sled from lifting as it went under the
cutter I manually supported the sled as it came off of the end of the
extended planer table. I even lifted it slightly to prevent snipe. I do
not believe that "drooping" on the outfeed end is the cause of the problem.
5 - As far as the board that is on the sled in the image below, you will note
that the trailing end is thinner than the rest of the board. This partly a
result of the issue that I've been asking about but also partly due to some
of my attempts to figure out the problem. The thinness is more exaggerated
than what happens when I just try to flatten a board with the sled. Cut the
gap between the board and the sled in half and that's about what I get when
try to flatten the top of the board and then flip it over.
If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
or my technique, just let me know.
https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:58:14 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/27/19 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> > infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> > pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> > through.
> >
> > When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> > roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> > go under the outfeed roller.
> >
> > Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> > assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> > wood?
> >
> > I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
> > I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
> > The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
> >
>
> It is probably set up perfectly fine.
>
> Most planer feed rollers are spring loaded and will have some vertical
> give to them.
> My guess is when you force the board under the front roller, it pushed
> the roller up into the spring.
Perhaps I'm not explaining my "test" very well. I am not forcing the board
under the front roller in the normal "infeed" sense.
I placed the board on the bed and slid it back and forth under the infeed
roller as I lowered the assembly. As soon as I felt the *slightest* amount
of resistance from the front roller, I stopped lowering the assembly. Like
zero resistance, then a 1/4" turn (1/64") and there's the tiniest bit of
drag. So little drag that all up and down motion is eliminated but I can
still push the board with my pinky.
Then when I push the board in farther, it come to a hard stop at the
outfeed roller.
> When the board meets the back roller,
> the difference in height is the amount of upward travel in the from
> roller.
I don't think so. I think the difference in height is much more than
that.
>
> If you continued to force the board under the back roller, it would
> likely raise up to the same height as the front.
Sure, but should I have to *force* it? It no longer takes just a pinky to
the get the board under the outfeed. It takes a considerable amount of full
hand push, so much that if the wheels on the cart weren't locked, I could
push it across the shop.
The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 03:58:29 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-5, Markem wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:24:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
>> >infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
>> >pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
>> >through.
>> >
>> >When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
>> >roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
>> >go under the outfeed roller.
>> >
>> >Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
>> >assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
>> >wood?
>> >
>> >I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
>> >I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
>> >The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
>>
>> Try setting as you have, but back it off that 1/32" before you feed???
>
>You obviously missed the point of my post. My process was just a test. With the planer running
>the board feeds through fine.
Then I would say that it is set up correctly.
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
>some answers.
So a straight egde on the flattened side of the reveal it is not flat?
Maybe flip the board end for end, maybe just the sled with the board
while planing. I have not used my planer to flatten twisted stock, I
start out on my jointer.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
>backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
>workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
>the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
>rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
>flex, too, without additional support.
>
Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.
Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.
On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> through.
>
> When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> go under the outfeed roller.
>
> Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> wood?
...
It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.
I've never had one of the "lunchbox" small planers so I can't speak for
their precise adjustment processes, but every planer I've ever had or
used has detailed setup instructions that give precise measurements and
steps for adjustments.
They also have the outfeed rollers spring-loaded so to account for the
difference in thickness between taking off a thin shaving vis a vis a
full cut.
But, the unloaded position has to be high enough the infeed rollers have
enough "oomph" to get it under the outfeed roller so it can do its job;
if it's too low or the infeed doesn't have enough grip, then you can
have the issue.
I've been told these little guys don't have it, but it's also possible
with a "real" planer that the pressure bar is too low and the board will
hit or drag on it.
Another alternative on the cast iron machines I'm used to is that the
rear bed rollers may be too high but I understand these guys don't have
them, either???
What is the particular planer you have?
--
On 1/28/2019 7:01 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:28:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
>>> infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
>>> pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
>>> through.
>>>
>>> When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
>>> roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
>>> go under the outfeed roller.
>>>
>>> Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
>>> assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
>>> wood?
>> ...
>>
>> It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
>> the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.
>
> Just to be clear, it's only a barrier with the planer off. When the board is fed into the
> planet with the power on, it does not stop at the back roller.
...
> Again, with the power on, the infeed roller has no problem pushing the board
> hard enough for the outfeed roller to grab it. It's only with the power off that I
> notice the board stop when it reaches the outfeed roller.
>
...
Well, why would you do that???? Of COURSE it will hit the outfeed
roller; how else could it possibly have enough friction applied to do
any good when planing?
--
On 1/27/19 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
> infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
> pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
> through.
>
> When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
> roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
> go under the outfeed roller.
>
> Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
> assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
> wood?
>
> I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
> I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
> The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
>
It is probably set up perfectly fine.
Most planer feed rollers are spring loaded and will have some vertical
give to them.
My guess is when you force the board under the front roller, it pushed
the roller up into the spring. When the board meets the back roller,
the difference in height is the amount of upward travel in the from
roller.
If you continued to force the board under the back roller, it would
likely raise up to the same height as the front.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
> what my question is. Should it be?
See my response above...how could it possibly function unless it is
lower and by enough to still have sufficient friction force applied to
pull the material on through the planer _EVEN AT THE THICKEST POSSIBLE
CUT_???
I don't know what the limit stop is on these baby planers, it's 1/8" on
my PM180 so the outfeed has to be roughly that much lower or you would
have to adjust it on the fly for every significant cut thickness.
Even the little old Rockwell/Delta Model 13 is 3/32" to the stop bar...
--
On 1/28/19 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:58:14 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/27/19 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
>>> infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
>>> pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
>>> through.
>>>
>>> When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
>>> roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
>>> go under the outfeed roller.
>>>
>>> Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
>>> assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
>>> wood?
>>>
>>> I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
>>> I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
>>> The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
>>>
>>
>> It is probably set up perfectly fine.
>>
>> Most planer feed rollers are spring loaded and will have some vertical
>> give to them.
>> My guess is when you force the board under the front roller, it pushed
>> the roller up into the spring.
>
> Perhaps I'm not explaining my "test" very well. I am not forcing the board
> under the front roller in the normal "infeed" sense.
>
> I placed the board on the bed and slid it back and forth under the infeed
> roller as I lowered the assembly. As soon as I felt the *slightest* amount
> of resistance from the front roller, I stopped lowering the assembly. Like
> zero resistance, then a 1/4" turn (1/64") and there's the tiniest bit of
> drag. So little drag that all up and down motion is eliminated but I can
> still push the board with my pinky.
>
> Then when I push the board in farther, it come to a hard stop at the
> outfeed roller.
>
>> When the board meets the back roller,
>> the difference in height is the amount of upward travel in the from
>> roller.
>
> I don't think so. I think the difference in height is much more than
> that.
>
>>
>> If you continued to force the board under the back roller, it would
>> likely raise up to the same height as the front.
>
> Sure, but should I have to *force* it? It no longer takes just a pinky to
> the get the board under the outfeed. It takes a considerable amount of full
> hand push, so much that if the wheels on the cart weren't locked, I could
> push it across the shop.
>
> The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
> what my question is. Should it be?
>
Call the company.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
> what my question is. Should it be?
Went and looked and I'd actually forgotten on the Model 13 both are set
the same height, only the compression spring is adjustable.
<http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1141/18135.pdf>
shows how a planer is designed to work and has some very useful
description of usage that is applicable for any.
Now I don't know about these little guys...well, gargle,gargle...oh!
there actually is a manual! It says right there
"The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."
Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
these are fixed, too...
Inspection of the way the thing is constructed should answer the
question, but I'm guessing there is no adjustment provided to change the
position.
<https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1078112/Wen-6550.html?page=16#manual>
--
On 1/28/2019 7:30 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
>> The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
>> what my question is. Should it be?
>
> Went and looked and I'd actually forgotten on the Model 13 both are set
> the same height, only the compression spring is adjustable.
>
> <http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1141/18135.pdf>
>
> shows how a planer is designed to work and has some very useful
> description of usage that is applicable for any.
>
> Now I don't know about these little guys...well, gargle,gargle...oh!
> there actually is a manual! It says right there
>
> "The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
> and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."
>
...
<http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/655/1296.pdf>
Now, here's a kni^h^h^hplaner! :)
It doesn't show the outfeed rollers; you're on your on to adjust as see
fit! I'm almost certain I remember they do have both compression spring
and height adjustment but I'll have go look to be certain; I've not had
to adjust it in years...one advantage of the mass--nothing flimsy to it...
--
On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
> says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
> don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
> "the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
> "correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
> outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?
>
> In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
> mean that it's set up correctly.
>
>>
>> Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
>> it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
>> and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
>> these are fixed, too...
>
> There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
> up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
>
...
Well, if works, doesn't it?
Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.
--
On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:30:53 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
...
>> "The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
>> and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."
>
> That's exactly what the manual for my planer says.
...
>
> In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
> mean that it's set up correctly.
...
> There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
> up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
...
Is the thing constructed so you _could_ adjust them if you wanted to, or
are they in a solidly-mounted assembly? For these little guys, I'd not
be terribly surprised if the latter were the case...there's only one
place they _can_ be. Then again, they may be mounted in a
bearing/sleeve holder on a threaded rod so they can be moved but if so
would expect would be part of the maintenance/setup info.
I thought maybe the manual would have a picture of the actual machine.
I still think the real answer is "If it works, it's OK!" How it acts
dead is pretty-much totally immaterial; go make chips!
--
On 1/29/2019 5:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
> haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
> long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
> my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
> trying to determine what is causing the problem.
>
...
That's what a planer does. Period. If it does that, it works.
I recommend to get some scrap stock of decent thickness, joint one face
flat and then run it through the planer several times.
It should subsequently measure identically the same thickness at all
four corners.
If that test works, then there's nothing wrong with the planer itself at
all, everything has to be in the other part of the equation.
But trying to determine if the planer functions correctly with all that
in the mix without knowing it a priori is too many variables to control
to ever come to a conclusion as to the root cause of a problem.
As for whether the design has the outfeed rollers lower than the infeed;
chasing that is a pointless errand if it functions correctly; they will
have been shown to be immaterial.
--
On 1/30/2019 12:41 AM, Jerry Osage wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to flatten the
>> long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
>> my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
>> trying to determine what is causing the problem.
>>
> Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
> If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
At least, and depending on the thickness of the stock and the material,
perhaps will need far more than that to take any flexing out of the
workpiece itself as it goes through. Planers exert quite a _lot_ of
downward force and wood is an elastic material.
Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
twisted material going through the planer. D-D may simply be deforming
the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
strongly enough for the task.
The plain planing (so to speak :) ) exercise will at least eliminate
that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.
But if his stock he's trying to straighten is 4/4 or less, it's going to
take a really solid support all along the length to keep it from just
bowing as it goes through...why I've rarely in 50 years done the
exercise for other than heavy stock--it's just too much bother given
there are better ways to rough prepare the material first or just use
better material from the git-go and find other uses for the specific
material. Unless it's a really exotic, high-priced or truly remarkable
in some other way, the result just is rarely worth the effort in my book.
--
On 1/30/2019 9:01 AM, dpb wrote:
...
> The plain planing (so to speak :) ) exercise will at least eliminate
> that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
> across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
> arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.
...
Typo -- "...the head isn't MISaligned..."
--dpb
On 1/30/2019 9:01 AM, dpb wrote:
...
> Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
> mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
> when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
> twisted material going through the planer. D-D may simply be deforming
> the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
> strongly enough for the task.
...
This can be checked by running a narrow piece partly thru the planer and
cutting power, then measuring the height from bed to head across the
width of the bed to see how much deformation there really is under load.
(When done, back off the bed/head depending on which is the movable
part, probably head? to remove the workpiece, obviously don't try to
restart with the workpiece still in place).
--
On 1/29/2019 6:17 PM, dpb wrote:
...
> I recommend to get some scrap stock of decent thickness, joint one face
> flat and then run it through the planer several times.
>
> It should subsequently measure identically the same thickness at all
> four corners.
...
And, keep the same orientation each pass -- several passes in the same
orientation will let you determine a very small misalignment that isn't
apparent on only one or two by compounding the error each pass. Wider
stock is better test material, too, of course...
--
On 1/31/2019 5:35 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 10:01:12 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/30/2019 12:41 AM, Jerry Osage wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03 <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to flatten the
>>>> long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
>>>> my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
>>>> trying to determine what is causing the problem.
>>>>
>>> Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
>>> If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
>>
>> At least, and depending on the thickness of the stock and the material,
>> perhaps will need far more than that to take any flexing out of the
>> workpiece itself as it goes through. Planers exert quite a _lot_ of
>> downward force and wood is an elastic material.
>>
>> Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
>> mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
>> when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
>> twisted material going through the planer. D-D may simply be deforming
>> the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
>> strongly enough for the task.
>>
>> The plain planing (so to speak :) ) exercise will at least eliminate
>> that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
>> across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
>> arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.
>>
>> But if his stock he's trying to straighten is 4/4 or less, it's going to
>> take a really solid support all along the length to keep it from just
>> bowing as it goes through...why I've rarely in 50 years done the
>> exercise for other than heavy stock--it's just too much bother given
>> there are better ways to rough prepare the material first or just use
>> better material from the git-go and find other uses for the specific
>> material. Unless it's a really exotic, high-priced or truly remarkable
>> in some other way, the result just is rarely worth the effort in my book.
>>
>
> 8/4 poplar. I doubt it's flexing.
I reread the long tale of woe...is the apparent problem only the
trailing end seems to be having too much taken off if the problem is
that part seems too much removed if I understand what you wrote?
How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.
--
On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....
> If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
> or my technique, just let me know.
>
>
> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.
What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
planing pass.
You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is <0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.
And, even though it is 8/4 material, poplar is quite soft/limber as
compared to, say, oak, so I would totally eliminate some flex there.
--
On 1/31/2019 5:57 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ....
>
>> If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the
>> set-up
>> or my technique, just let me know.
>>
>>
>> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
> In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.
>
> What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
> planing pass.
>
> You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
> difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
> the angle is <0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
> any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
> gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
> flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
> for any movement whatsoever.
>
> And, even though it is 8/4 material, poplar is quite soft/limber as
> compared to, say, oak, so I would totally eliminate some flex there.
...
"...so I would _NOT_ totally eliminate some flex there."
--
On 1/31/2019 6:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>> If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
>>> or my technique, just let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>>
>> In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.
>>
>> What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
>> planing pass.
>
> Other than me feeding the sled in and retrieving it on the way out, what aren't
> you seeing? Should I post a link to a video? ;-)
Something's moving but we've no way to tell what from static picture so
that _might_ be of some help, yes. Of course, from afar, it might not
be, either; no way to predict, really.
> That's the setup. What do you think is missing? Is it just the shims? If you
> want me to insert shims and then take the picture again, I can, but I kind of
> think that that would be a waste of time. On the twisted boards that I'm
> actually trying to flatten, I am shimming the gaps both to eliminate any
> rocking and fill them in to prevent flex.
I don't think it would be a waste of time, no. Seeing just how you
shimmed it and what's holding what how could be a klew...then again, as
above, from afar, "maybe not!" but you've not found it so far on your
own, so what can it hurt?
>>
>> You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
>> difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
>> the angle is <0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
>> any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
>> gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
>> flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
>> for any movement whatsoever.
>
> The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".
>
> As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
> things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
> than 2'.
>
> In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
> 1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
> outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
> don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
> I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.
That tells me _something_ pretty major is happening that last foot,
then, and the video _might_ show it. I'm still curious about just what
the real stiffness of the machine itself is...I'll admit I've never used
one of the lunchbox planers "in anger" so I really don't have anything
to compare to but heavy iron but I've looked at various models in the
stores and they just look too flimsy for real work to me. I'm
suspicious something in the planer itself is giving with an irregular
geometry.
--
On 2/1/2019 10:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:04:19 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 1/31/2019 6:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> Again, as I'm sure you know, there are many youtube's showing the flattening
> process, including the shimming part. I'm doing what they are doing.
In particular, I was wondering how you hold the work relatively to the
shim---are you hot-gluing both sides of the shims? And, I was also just
curious to see how many you thought were enough and to to see an actual
attempt setup instead of just having it described...like coding errors,
"don't tell us what you think the error is/means, _show_ us the code and
the actual error in context".
>>>> You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
>>>> difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
>>>> the angle is <0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
>>>> any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
>>>> gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
>>>> flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
>>>> for any movement whatsoever.
>>>
>>> The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".
>>>
>>> As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
>>> things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
>>> than 2'.
>>>
>>> In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
>>> 1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
>>> outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
>>> don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
>>> I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.
>>
>> That tells me _something_ pretty major is happening that last foot,
>> then, and the video _might_ show it. I'm still curious about just what
>> the real stiffness of the machine itself is...I'll admit I've never used
>> one of the lunchbox planers "in anger" so I really don't have anything
>> to compare to but heavy iron but I've looked at various models in the
>> stores and they just look too flimsy for real work to me. I'm
>> suspicious something in the planer itself is giving with an irregular
>> geometry.
>>
>
> I'm with you on that suspicion.
>
> OK, thanks for hanging in here as long as you have. I'm going to give this
> a rest for a while. I have enough flattened and thickness-planned boards to
> actually start building the bench for my daughter. All twisted boards were
> cut 10 - 12" inches longer than needed just to be safe, so lopping off the
> thinner end is not an issue - for this project, at least. I wouldn't try
> this with an expensive/limited amount piece of wood until a solution is
> found, but for now it's time to get building.
That's actually a suggestion I had intended to make; glad you did so and
thereby got the material needed.
I've done it in the past on the rare occasion, but it's always been much
more rigid material than poplar and my "sled" boards were also like 8-
or 10/4 oak/maple as I have planers with 6" or 8" throats so the base
was much stouter.
I did it by either applying a laminate or taking another piece of
melamine-faced ply to the sled and then just used a thinner sled to hold
the work and let the planer do the work to pull it thru on the base
rather than having a mobile sled as the whole arrangement. Then I
didn't have to worry about propping up the outfeed other than just
support the base boards as it was fixed in place--a replacement table
entirely, iow.
That's why I said that in general I didn't find it worth the trouble! :)
--
On 2/2/2019 11:18 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/1/2019 10:26 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
>> Yes, I know that. I was simply responding to Micheal's comment about an
>> extended table by noting that I am already using one. While it, by
>> itself,
>> does nothing to flatten the board, it does provide support for the sled.
>> When using a 6' sled and 8/4 boards like I am, it's nice to have a few
>> feet
>> of solid support before and after the planer instead of relying on the
>> relatively short planer infeed and outfeed tables.
>
> OK, ;~)Â Actually I have a 15" stationary planer with fold up/down in
> feed and out feed rollers/tables that are about 2' long. They work just
> fine and I do not worry with them being on the exact same plane as the
> planer bed/table.
>
> FWIW the sled you have and the one I am talking about are completely
> different. My sled travels through the planer at the same rate as the
> work. I use the wedges to keep the work from moving up or down, because
> of bow or twist, between the sled and the work.
>
...
His "sled" does, too, Leon. He's just done basically like I described
with also making a false table but the sled is the 2x under the
workpiece and it progresses thru the planer carrying the work...you just
dispense with the lower false table.
What isn't shown in the picture is just how he did actually do any
shimming when planing "in anger"; he just has the two pieces laying on
top of each other as all the picture illustrates is that the two don't
lay flat face-to-face after he did make one or more passes to try to
flatten.
What we've not been able to see is an actual working pass.
--
On 2/1/2019 12:32 PM, dpb wrote:
...
> I did it by either applying a laminate or taking another piece of
> melamine-faced ply to the sled and then just used a thinner sled to hold
> the work and let the planer do the work to pull it thru on the base
> rather than having a mobile sled as the whole arrangement. Then I
> didn't have to worry about propping up the outfeed other than just
> support the base boards as it was fixed in place--a replacement table
> entirely, iow.
>
> That's why I said that in general I didn't find it worth the trouble! :)
Actually, I had forgotten at the time I wrote the above that that's the
basic idea you used -- mine was just a lot "beefier" because I was doing
much heavier stock at the time.
I've never tried to do smallish pieces that way; when doing a lot of
work that would have needed to I had access to a 12" Crescent jointer so
it was never an issue excepting for that one set of 16/4 x 15-16" walnut
slabs a customer wanted to use for mantle-pieces. They had come from
his grandfather's place and been sitting in the barn for nearly 50 years
and he couldn't bring himself to cut them down... :)
--
On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
> I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
> guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
> is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
> differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
> have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
> going to have to trust me...or not.
Other way 'round ... not that we don't "trust"; you came asking for help
and from afar, _seeeing_ pictures of how you had the set up when you
actually tried to make a trial run is the only way we can see if
something shows up to us that didn't to you.
Your choice of how far to try to push the long-distance diagnostics but
the clearly obvious seems to have mostly been eliminated (other than the
very first basic test I suggested to prove the planer itself is doing
what it's supposed to).
Remember, too, you're looking for minute details...a few thou here and a
few thou there can add up to real... :)
--
On 2/2/2019 3:31 PM, dpb wrote:
...
> Remember, too, you're looking for minute details...a few thou here and a
> few thou there can add up to real... :)
Actually, another thought came to me after posting.
Are there bed rollers on this little guy? How much above the table are
they sitting if so?
Possibly the last few inches compresses your bed board from being about
in line with them to the table when there's not a long run of the sled
but only the last few inches. That _might_ explain why most of the
problem appears in the last few inches of the cut...
--
On 2/2/2019 4:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 4:31:15 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
>>> guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
>>> is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
>>> differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
>>> have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
>>> going to have to trust me...or not.
>>
>> Other way 'round ... not that we don't "trust"; you came asking for help
>> and from afar, _seeeing_ pictures of how you had the set up when you
>> actually tried to make a trial run is the only way we can see if
>> something shows up to us that didn't to you.
>>
>> Your choice of how far to try to push the long-distance diagnostics but
>> the clearly obvious seems to have mostly been eliminated (other than the
>> very first basic test I suggested to prove the planer itself is doing
>> what it's supposed to).
>>
>> Remember, too, you're looking for minute details...a few thou here and a
>> few thou there can add up to real... :)
>>
>
> All true, no argument.
>
> As far as "the planer doing what it is supposed to do" I have another 'test'
> question, as in "should it be doing this".
>
> I was doing some basic thickness planing today. Assume a board that was
> already flat. 8/4 x 3.5" x 26", S2S.
>
> I need to get it down to 1.5" thickness. I sneak up on the cut, half a
> handle turn at a time (should be 1/32") Eventually the rollers grab the
> board and pull it through without actually cutting anything. Another half
> turn and I hear a full length planing sound. So far so good.
>
> The question: If I pass the board through again, *without turning the handle*,
> should I hear a full length planing sound? If I then pass it through again,
> *without turning the handle*, should I once again hear a full length planing
> sound?
>
> I have found that I can pass the board through at least 3 times and still
> hear it cutting. The sound is a little quieter each time, but there's no
> doubt that it's more than just the rollers pulling it through.
>
> Since it's a narrow board, I tried passing it through the middle, the left
> and the right to see if it made any difference, but as far as I can tell, it
> doesn't.
>
> Should it be making a planing sound on up to 3 passes even when the head
> has not been lowered?
That's a sign of what I've been thinking has to be with the little
planers; even in the big boys like the PM 180 there is _some_ mechanical
play in the various pieces in the planer itself; from the lash in the
height adjusting mechanism to the yield of the bed and head supports
plus what small compression there is in the workpiece itself as it goes
through. All of these effects add up; they're normal and basically
unavoidable no matter what the machine, only how much is dependent on
just how well-built and stiff the machine itself is constructed.
Do you have precise-enough calipers to measure the difference in
material thickness between such passes? For "ordinary" woodworking, it
would be within normal tolerances so it really isn't anything of a deal,
whether with your particular machine and the off-center work it
contributes, I really don't see that effect being the one that would
cause the end effect that you seem to be experiencing.
In short, it's normal to an extent, a second pass on the PM180 is
essentially knife-clearance except for a knot or somesuch. Of course,
it weighs 1670 lb, too... :)
--dpb
On 2/3/2019 8:08 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 7:59:06 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
>> On 2/2/2019 4:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...
>>> Should it be making a planing sound on up to 3 passes even when the head
>>> has not been lowered?
>>
>> That's a sign of what I've been thinking has to be with the little
>> planers; even in the big boys like the PM 180 there is _some_ mechanical
>> play in the various pieces in the planer itself; from the lash in the
>> height adjusting mechanism to the yield of the bed and head supports
>> plus what small compression there is in the workpiece itself as it goes
>> through. All of these effects add up; they're normal and basically
>> unavoidable no matter what the machine, only how much is dependent on
>> just how well-built and stiff the machine itself is constructed.
>>
>> Do you have precise-enough calipers to measure the difference in
>> material thickness between such passes? For "ordinary" woodworking, it
>> would be within normal tolerances so it really isn't anything of a deal,
>> whether with your particular machine and the off-center work it
>> contributes, I really don't see that effect being the one that would
>> cause the end effect that you seem to be experiencing.
>>
>> In short, it's normal to an extent, a second pass on the PM180 is
>> essentially knife-clearance except for a knot or somesuch. Of course,
>> it weighs 1670 lb, too... :)
>>
>> --dpb
>
> Both of my calipers supposedly measure down to 1/2 a thousandth. Are they truly accurate at
> that level? I can't tell because even they don't agree at that level of precision - not that I
> actually care. I'm building a bench, not an artificial heart. ;-)
...
For this, you don't care about absolute, only relative with the same set
of calipers...I was just curious about whether you could actually
measure whether there was enough additional material removed that you
could actually measure it. One would sorta' expect the "give" would
mostly be stretched to the limit and things like the adjusting screw
lash wouldn't recover too much between passes if the handle wasn't moved
between and so there would be little "recovery" of whatever slack was
there on initial pass. But, the machine vibrates, the load is removed,
etc., etc., so nothing is completely static.
But, I would expect there simply isn't enough mass in one of these
little guys to prevent at least some movement of the head and bed
relative to each other with a full planing pass so I'm not surprised at
all with your findings.
--
"Leon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2/2/2019 1:44 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:18:51 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> FWIW the sled you have and the one I am talking about are completely
>> different. My sled travels through the planer at the same rate as the
>> work.
>
> Not true.
>
> Start at the top of the pile.
>>>My mistake, sorry. I did not want to go through tall of the redundancy
from the beginning.
>>>I thought the sled was the melamine part and that you simply had lumber
sitting on top. I now see that the large piece has the stop on the far
end. ;~)
>
> 1 - Poplar board that I want to flatten
> 2 - 2" thick sled, with the stop at the front end so the poplar board
> pushes
> it along at the same rate
> 3 - 1.5" thick particle board/melamine bed, used as an extension table
>
> https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg
>
>> I use the wedges to keep the work from moving up or down, because
>> of bow or twist, between the sled and the work.
>
> As do I and as I've mentioned numerous times. The shims/wedges are just
> not
> shown in the picture because I was just trying to show the table, sled,
> etc.
>
> I can set it all up again, shim the board and post another picture or you
> guys can trust me when I say it's shimmed correctly so that all movement
> is prevented. As I mentioned to dpb, every board needs to be shimmed
> differently, so even if I posted a picture of *that* shimmed board, you'd
> have no way of knowing of I shimmed *every* board correctly. You're just
> going to have to trust me...or not.
>
<>>>Got it! LOL sorry you had to repeat yourself to me, again.
>>>If you are continuing to have issues it is probably a situation where
you are going to be wasting time trying to get more out of a bench top
planer. I never expected my bench top planer to do anything besides
change the thickness of a "flat" board.
>>>AND FWIW flattening a board on my 15" stationary planer is not a
pleasurable thing either. Technically that is the job of a jointer but
that is another story.
>>>Moving the sled and work with out disturbing the shims takes
considerably more time and effort than it is worth, for me.
===============================================
Two thoughts
Does your planer have a head lock for the height? If not, this could be why
you can make 3 passes at one setting. Each pass takes off less material and
thus can deflect the head less.
In regard to the sled. Could you try planing a twisted board that is
significantly shorter than the sled. If the sled is tilting this would then
happen after the board has gone completely through.
John
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:24:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
>infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
>pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
>through.
>
>When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
>roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
>go under the outfeed roller.
>
>Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
>assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
>wood?
>
>I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
>I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
>The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.
Try setting as you have, but back it off that 1/32" before you feed???