Hand plane - can you REALLY joint a perfectly straight edge?

Average notebook paper is .0028. Measuring the shavings is not accurate. The
wood in the shavings compresses making it measure thicker than the actual
amount removed. Its pretty close though.



"Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > When the blade takes a light cut, do you think we are talking on the
> > order of 2 or 3 thous?
> >
> > dave
> >
>
> You know, I'm not sure. I'll measure a couple shavings and see what I'm
> getting this weekend since I'm curious now. I don't really have a good
feel
> for how thick a few thousands of an inch is. The thickness of magazine
> paper would be in the ballpark.
>
> -Chris
>
>

Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:05:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
>>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
>>the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
>>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
>>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
>Yes...flat. Not SQUARE, mind you...but flat.
Why not? Are you assuming use of a jointer without a fence, or with a
fence not square to the tables?

>What do you mean by 'straight'? Do you mean flat? Sure you can. The
>front and rear are on the same plane...its the cutting blade that
>projects below that plane...that does the cutting.
>
>You start by running the front of the plane...the blade finally
>contacts the work and starts cutting...the rear of the plane follows.
>
>When you finally get done, the surface will be flat...but NOT
>necessarily square.
See Gorman's post. It will be VERY slightly concave.

>The key to getting the proper result is the WASTE...along with the
>eyeballing. If it looks good...and then you run it thru one more time
>and you get waste from the front to the back...it's flat. This is
>true with any tool you use.
>
>But maybe ONLY flat. That doesn't guarantee that there isn't a bevel
>in it. That doesn't guarantee that it's square.
Again, assuming your fence is not square.

>That's why I like my router table. My bit is square to the table.
>When I run it thru, its automatically square...and also flat when I
>get done.
And my jointer's cutter is square to the fence -- same result.

> This would be extremely difficult to do with a plane on
>very thin stock...1/4" and less, let's say.
Easy. Shooting board.

> It'd be hard to plane
>that...free standing... without tilting the plane to one side.
Very true.

>
>And, don't forget...a plane is but one way to get the job done.
>There's a lot of other tools...or combination of tools...that can do
>the same job as the plane.
Yes, and some jobs better and some not as well.

>
>I've said it before...got flamed...but I'll say it again...
>
>A plane's primary job...except for specialized planes...is simply to
>remove huge areas of waste quickly...back when no other tools did the
>job as easily. Even then, there were other tools that could do the
>same job.
Interesting. I wonder why we see other than scrub planes on the old
tool market. I guess the rest were just used for decoration...

>What you're attempting to do is not the job of a plane. If yer tryin'
>to take off thousandths, you should consider sandpaper.
Unless you prefer the surface left by a plane.


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote

: ............................... Longer planes,
: since they ride the high points, can not get down into the lows to plane
: them. So what you end up doing is knocking of those high spots. It still
: takes a bit of skill but it is easier with a longer plane. I'm not much
for
: explaining things but you probably get the idea.

Coming late into this ..............

It can be shown theoretically, and many know from experience, that all hand
planes can plane a concave edge. The radius of the curve (assuming it to be
circular, which it might not be) is proportional to the square of the length
of the plane divided by the set.

Hence the longer the plane, the nearer the curve is to a straight line.

This assumes normal operation of course, ie trying to plane a straight edge
(ie not a convex one) with one continuous shaving from end to end.

Most of us want to form a slight concavity when jointing panels where cramps
hold the material while the glue sets. This has the advantage that the joint
is more likely to stay closed at the ends as the ends of the panels shrink
in consequene of long term seasonal changes.

Depending on how 'perfectly' is defined, it is possible by some planing of
the ends to get two edges straight enough to exactly mate without cramp
pressure. This is how in the past, the workers made 'rubbed' joints with
instant-grabbing 'Scotch' glue (or to the Murricans, 'hide' glue).

Hot glue was applied to both edges, the boards were rubbed together to
remove surplus glue and the panel was laid aside to dry. I've seen men
show off by gluing a rubbed joint and immediately throwing the panel to the
floor. In my youth I've done it to impress the multitude.

More about panel jointing on my web site - 'Planing Notes' - 'Rubbed
Jointing'.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

"Richards" <[email protected]> wrote

: You've made a very good point. If the blade projects beneath the plane,
: the piece of wood that you're working on will never be perfectly flat
: because the reference surface is not the same as the cutting edge.
:
: To cut the wood perfectly flat, it seems that the plane should be
: divided into two separate pieces. The part of the plane that is in
: front of the blade could be raised to the height of the cut desired.
: The part of the plane that is behind the blade should be set so that the
: blade and the sole of the plane are at the same level.

On my web site is the result of an experiment that relates to this point.

Please look at 'Planing Notes' - 'Plane Body Deflection'.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

I'm sure the 'real' woodworkers that frequent the wreck could no doubt
create an invisible glue line using a dull adz.

dave

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:24:04 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:58:07 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:39 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
>>>>FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
>>>>missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>>>>
>>>>dave
>>>
>>>You cats have never used a jointer plane properly, obviously.
>>>
>>>Sure, any plane will hit the high spots first. It will continue to
>>>take down the high spots till they are at the same level as the lowest
>>>low spot, after which you have a clean, straight edge.
>>>
>>>Done it lots of times, not dreaming!
>>>
>>>If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
>>>pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.
>>
>>They didn't have rasps and sandpaper back then?
>>
>
> You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
> an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.
>
>
>
> Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a
>
>
> "Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:24:04 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:58:07 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:39 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
>>>FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
>>>missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>>>
>>>dave
>>
>>You cats have never used a jointer plane properly, obviously.
>>
>>Sure, any plane will hit the high spots first. It will continue to
>>take down the high spots till they are at the same level as the lowest
>>low spot, after which you have a clean, straight edge.
>>
>>Done it lots of times, not dreaming!
>>
>>If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
>>pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.
>
>They didn't have rasps and sandpaper back then?
>
You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab

On 13 Nov 2003 22:55:43 -0800, [email protected] (Patrick Olguin)
wrote:

>Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't
>mind.

Ya know, I gotta start using these Walt Disney references in my stuff
sose asta give it da proper gravitas and sech.


Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> It seems a motion has been made for a vote. I second it and also vote
> "Naaaaaah".

I'll go a step further. A lazy question leading to an annoying thread
with a good outcome, hearing from O'Deen again.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net

Steve Wilson wrote:

<snipped>

> I have two #7's (a new Clifton and an Type 11
> Stanley/Bailey) in my arsenal and I have the Type 11 tuned to take a
> very thin shaving (IIRC .0015") and I leave a 386 jointer fence
> attached to it always. So, when I clean up a jointed edge before a
> glue up, or to fix a bonehead error, I just reach for my Bailey #7
> w/386 fence and pass it down the edge. That way I'm consistent and the
> edge always comes out great.

There you go Dave, a Stanley #7 (in a "Sweetheart" box no less)

http://www.patented-antiques.com/Backpages/T-F-S/stanley%20planes/jointer/s7_jointer_boxed.htm

and a #386 jointer fence

http://www.patented-antiques.com/Backpages/T-F-S/Stanley%20Tools/misc-cutters/386fence.htm

You better hurry, they will probably be sold by tomorrow.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:21:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>the only people "pissed off" are the cranky SOB's.
>
>Oh, yes, of course. The problem *must* be with EVERYBODY ELSE. It couldn't
>possibly be with YOU.
>
>> Everyone else who
>>has contributed to this thread has been a gentleman. Perhaps you and
>>cramer could use a little "charm"?
>
>WTF?? BAD, suggesting that *others* "could use a little charm"?
>Pot, kettle, black. Physician, heal thyself. Etc.
>
>>
um doug? you waging a full scale argument with a half wit? :-}

Dodging hornets, I'll say that blade exposure can be kept to such a minimum
that it just plain (plane) makes no difference at all. The length of the
plane sole is important relative to how straight the board is initially, and
how impatient the operator, as comparison to a standard allows even a
short-soled plane to level observed high spots enough to where its sole will
bridge and average the remaining.

Aren't you the same one who was giving me grief a couple months ago when I
told you that a jointer could/should be used the same way?

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> there?
>
> Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
> dave
>

If you take the perfect stroke with minimum blade exposure, all's the same.

Maybe someone in the group can help me, but I believe the theory behind it
is that you have hardened and burnished your jointed faces, and will get a
better glue joint by "opening" the pores. I think it's crap, and glue off
the jointer or the TS with a good blade.

You use a plane to do two things, if you're a basic Norm - trim and surface.

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> My question is more related to starting with a totally flat edge. The
> idea is that some woodworkers like to run a hand plane over a jointed
> edge for that "edge" (pun intended) in quality of a glue up joint. So
> what I want to know is if you are going to just cut a smidge from the
> edge with a smaller plane, do you end up with a worse edge than if you
> just rely on a well power jointed edge? Is anyone understanding what I
> getting at? (Cramer, for god's sake, don't answer, you are just an
> absolute jerk of grand proportions and I can't imagine why anyone would
> respond to you).

"Patrick Olguin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
>> oxidizer, nozzle and a match?
>
>Unfortunately, rocket science has been "ruined," by the introduction of
>oodles of software, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity, uncertainty,
>fear and loathing, and statements like, "It isn't wrong - we just haven't
>made up our minds yet." Not unlike rec.woodworking on the odd day.

And besides, rocket science is all going to be shipped offshore to
China in the next couple of years.

ObWW: Maybe they'll put a space facility right next to one of the
factories that makes woodworking stuff. ;-)

Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

Sandpaper at one time was shark skin, several hundred years ago.

--
There is only one period and no underscores in the real email address.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:12:46 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:17:14 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
>>>an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.
>>>
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>But its not that difficult. Its done all the time.
>>
>>
>>Have a nice week...
>>
>
>I don't have facts, and these don't always count in this kind of
>argument anyway.
>
>BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
>sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.

I know for a fact its at least 60 years old! lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Dave,

I will often take a plane to clean up the edge after I've run a board
through on my jointer (PM 60). When the knives on my jointer are
fresh and recently set, the surface left by the jointer is very, very
good and runing a hand plane over the surface does little to improve
things. However, as the knives wear a bit, maybe develop a nick or
two, develop a slight crown or hollow (were talking maybe .002"), or
if I run a board over the jointer too fast, using a hand plane will
improve things a bunch. So now I use a plane to clean up edge joints
all the time. Do you need a long plane (i.e. #6, #7, #8) to do this?
No, because the edge is square to a face and straight. The plane,
finely tuned, is just there to take off a whisper thin shaving to
clean up slight imperfections in the surface. Now, sometimes the
edge, generally due to a technique screw up on my part, needs a little
more work. Then I make sure I pull out a jointer. What plane do I
usually use? I have two #7's (a new Clifton and an Type 11
Stanley/Bailey) in my arsenal and I have the Type 11 tuned to take a
very thin shaving (IIRC .0015") and I leave a 386 jointer fence
attached to it always. So, when I clean up a jointed edge before a
glue up, or to fix a bonehead error, I just reach for my Bailey #7
w/386 fence and pass it down the edge. That way I'm consistent and the
edge always comes out great. But in reality, if the edge is straight
and square then any finely set plane will work for cleaning up slight
machine marks (generally scallops)

Chris, you understand my dilemma exactly. If I get a smoother (sorry, I
had misspoken earlier when I referred to a block plane) as my first
quality plane (Veritas $160) I was wondering if I could smooth a power
jointed edge to perfection. The edge would already be flat, but the
object of further work would be to remove machining marks, as you noted.
Somebody understands me! :)

dave

Christopher wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>so there is no point to getting a low angle block plane to take a swipe
>>or two across the edge of a power jointed board to get that sucker dead
>>on flat and smooth? I've read articles stating that the author will
>>power joint a board and then run a plane over it to make the edge even
>>better than what came off the jointer. Does that require a long
>>jointing plane. No other plane will suffice?
>>
>>If that IS the case, what use will I get out of a $160 Veritas plane?
>>
>>thanks.
>>
>>DAVE
>>
>
>
> I think I read about what you mention here in The Handplane Book. I don't
> have a jointer, so can't speak from experience, but I can tell you that the
> low angle block plane is not the tool you want for this task. You would use
> a smooth plane like a number 4 or even a slightly longer plane, set to take
> a very fine shaving. As I understand it, low angle planes are mostly for
> end grain and maybe grain that has no particular direction. The point is
> not to make the work piece straighter than it comes off the jointer though.
> The point is to remove any slight ripples left by the rotating cutting head
> of the power jointer.
>
> -Chris
>
>

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<ybvsb.133621$275.396284@attbi_s53>...
> Well Dave, it would appear that no one here really knows. Longer planes,
> since they ride the high points, can not get down into the lows to plane
> them. So what you end up doing is knocking of those high spots. It still
> takes a bit of skill but it is easier with a longer plane. I'm not much for
> explaining things but you probably get the idea.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> > plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> > the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> > operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> > table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
> >
> > A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> > projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> > long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> > grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> > found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> > straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> > long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> > board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> > reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> > plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> > board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> > use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> > the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> > reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> > there?
> >
> > Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
> >
> > dave
> >

Your jointer works with a circular cutter. Your "straight" edge is
actually quite wavy on a glue line level. A jointer plane leaves a
smooth and staight surface for edge gluing. It takes a little practise
to get right, but it does work. It has for hundreds of years. If it
didn't there would be another old tool for the job.

So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna
be judged by the company you keep.


I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge
of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your
flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your
prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of
knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows
me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to
slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.

In the future, should you care to distance yourself from your ill-bred
friends, I'm sure we can both dispense with this time-wasting discourse.

The wrong approach? You? Like a drunk driving the wrong way on I-5 at
90 mph with his lights out.

> getting all this shop-time, and so naturally he has questions. Could
>it be
> I really am just a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, >egotistical,
> selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard?

In a word...yes. But that's just one man's opinion. Don't let me ruin
your day.

dave

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:05:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
>the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.

Yes...flat. Not SQUARE, mind you...but flat.

To make sure we understand the difference...envision running a piece
thru the jointer with a jig that'll give you a 15° bevel. Running the
piece thru...after enough passes...will give you a flat surface.
Jointed...you'll get a creation that is not square, of course...but
indeed flat for glueup.

>A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
>projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
>long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board?

What do you mean by 'straight'? Do you mean flat? Sure you can. The
front and rear are on the same plane...its the cutting blade that
projects below that plane...that does the cutting.

You start by running the front of the plane...the blade finally
contacts the work and starts cutting...the rear of the plane follows.

When you finally get done, the surface will be flat...but NOT
necessarily square.

>Just for
>grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
>found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
>straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
>long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
>board? a 6' board?

A large one. A small plane won't give you the surface area you need
in front of the cutter.

>Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
>reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
>plane?

Proper plane...and technique. Don't forget...I'm not really an expert
on planes! lol I wouldn't...and don't...use a plane for this kinda
work. I use my router table for these kinda glue-ups. And I very
seldom hafta use that even. Most of my cuts come ready to go...right
from the saw.

>OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
>board to start with, and know that it is flat?

You've got to SEE what you want to do...want to accomplish...for a
starter. For instance, if you have a 1/2" crater in the edge of the
piece...and you can SEE that crater...you've got to run the plane
'till its gone...and 'till yer getting a thin slice all along the
piece...from beginning to end. But I think you realize that...that's
all just common sense.

>In other words, when I
>use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it.

SURE you do. If you take that same 1/2" crater...and run a 1/16" bite
thru the jointer, yer STILL gonna have that crater...and be able to
see it. Using a plane isn't simply a matter of just using a plane.
Its a matter of observation also...same as with the jointer.

You'll need to run enough passes to get rid of the full 1/2".

> Can I do
>the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
>reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
>there?

You eyeball it...in BOTH cases.

The key to getting the proper result is the WASTE...along with the
eyeballing. If it looks good...and then you run it thru one more time
and you get waste from the front to the back...it's flat. This is
true with any tool you use.

But maybe ONLY flat. That doesn't guarantee that there isn't a bevel
in it. That doesn't guarantee that it's square.

That's why I like my router table. My bit is square to the table.
When I run it thru, its automatically square...and also flat when I
get done. This would be extremely difficult to do with a plane on
very thin stock...1/4" and less, let's say. It'd be hard to plane
that...free standing... without tilting the plane to one side.

And, don't forget...a plane is but one way to get the job done.
There's a lot of other tools...or combination of tools...that can do
the same job as the plane.

I've said it before...got flamed...but I'll say it again...

A plane's primary job...except for specialized planes...is simply to
remove huge areas of waste quickly...back when no other tools did the
job as easily. Even then, there were other tools that could do the
same job.

What you're attempting to do is not the job of a plane. If yer tryin'
to take off thousandths, you should consider sandpaper.

One final thing, Dave...'cause this is gettin' long...

A square would NOT be the proper tool to check to see if the plane was
doing the proper job...in many cases.

Consider this...

Yer trying to 'flatten out' one of the 1/2" sides on a piece of
stock...with a plane. The opposite side is 20" long. One other side
is 24" long...and the side opposite that one is 22" long. The side
yer working on has a 30° bevel.

The side yer working on is now flat...and has the 30° bevel that you
wanted.

You won't be able to check any of that side...for flatness...with the
square. None of that side...in any direction...is at 90° to any of
the other sides.

Sorry for the long post. Good luck.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Hi Dave,

You're thinking of the Veritas low-angle SMOOTHING plane, right? (not the
block plane as you've referred to in a few other posts in this thread).
That's a big difference in how you would use the plane. Neither one of
these is meant to be used to joint board edges, at least not ideally.

The best use for the low-angle smoothing plane, IMO, would be to finish
smooth the FACES of particularly difficult (i.e. highly figured) pieces.
Using the smoothing plane on a board edge is fine, if what you want is a
smooth edge. If you start out with a square, flat edge, you should end up
with a square, flat and smooth edge. Technique is critical, though.

So, if you were going to edge glue several boards into a panel, there
wouldn't be much reason to smooth the edges and the power jointer should do
perefectly well at this operation. If you have a door edge, say, that will
be visible and you want to give it a final treatment before finishing, then
a swipe with the smoothing plane might make sense.

I'm no expert mind, you, but that's how I see it.

Mike

--

There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.


"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> so there is no point to getting a low angle block plane to take a swipe
> or two across the edge of a power jointed board to get that sucker dead
> on flat and smooth? I've read articles stating that the author will
> power joint a board and then run a plane over it to make the edge even
> better than what came off the jointer. Does that require a long
> jointing plane. No other plane will suffice?
>
> If that IS the case, what use will I get out of a $160 Veritas plane?
>
> thanks.
>
> DAVE
>
> Hitch wrote:
>
> > Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >
> >>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> >>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that
> >>as the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> >>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> >>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
> >>
> >>A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> >>projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> >>long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> >>grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> >>found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened"
> >>the straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got.
> >>How long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say
> >>a 2' board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to
> >>have a reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly
> >>as you plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an
> >>essentially flat board to start with, and know that it is flat? In
> >>other words, when I use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have
> >>to check it. Can I do the same thing with a plane, or do you have to
> >>stop, eyeball it with a reference straight-edge, and then touch it up
> >>an little here, a little there?
> >>
> >>Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
> >>
> >>dave
> >>
> >
> >
> > Read the sources listed below, but short of that:
> >
> > - jointer planes run 22" to 24" long, generally;
> >
> > - you can make nice, flat surfaces for joining with them and lots of
> > practice;
> >
> > - you can use the edge of the plane as your straightedge while planing;
> >
> > - there are some tricks to creating joinable board edges (e.g., jointing
> > both boards at once to remove one variable in the process).
> >
> >
> >
>

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane.

Dave,

This is why you piss-off people like Scott (and the faceless rabble,
too tired to play tard-ball with you anymore). I plugged this into
Google:

"hand plane differently jointer group:rec.woodworking"

And got this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hand+plane+differently+jointer+group:rec.woodworking+group:rec.woodworking&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.woodworking&safe=off&selm=Pine.SUN.3.96.971023184113.26434E-100000%40galileo.cris.com&rnum=1

Now, this isn't to say you're not allowed to ask a question. Any
significant discussion is liable to be cyclical (just keep reading
those woodworking mags for a few years), but the most minor effort
(and anyone's part) will at least allow you to begin to have a sniff
of a clue of a partial brain-cell of an idea of a notion of what the
hell you're talking about instead of the handtool equivalent of asking
in alt.astronomy: Geeze fellers, why is the sky cullerd blue? (BTW -
it's because the light wave-length our eye detects as blue is the most
widely scattered by our gaseous atmosphere). There's a decent
explanation here: http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/bluesky/index.html.

It isn't rocket science, Dave. DAMHIKT.

O'Deen

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna
> be judged by the company you keep.
>
>
> I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge
> of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your
> flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your
> prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of
> knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows
> me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to
> slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.

Hmmmmmmmmm. So tough love is not your bag. Sucks for you, because in
your "failing to learn," anything new, you obviously skipped a
fundamental of planing, which was mentioned in that six-year old post,
and still holds true today. To wit - that one should maintain
downward pressure on the knob (toe) of the plane at the beginning of
the stroke, and then make sure to switch that pressure to the tote
(heel) near the end. This will prevent crowning of the edge.

It's a pity the mental equivalent of walking and chewing gum prevents
you from absorbing new knowledge, but I'm sure it won't ruin your day.
Enjoy your new plane when it arrives. Try not to use it on melamine.

O'Deen

Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't
mind.

The clear cellophane used to wrap cigarette packs is very close to
.001".

I took a hand woodworking class where the instructor made us put away
our jointer planes and edge joint two 3-foot walnut boards together
with our Stanley #4's. It is much more difficult, but it is possible
to get a light-tight joint that way, and it sure highlights the
problems in your planing technique.

I think throwing a football 30 yards and having it go right over the
receiver's shoulder requires more absolute accuracy from a human arm
and hand than making a good glue joint with a hand plane.

"Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > When the blade takes a light cut, do you think we are talking on the
> > order of 2 or 3 thous?
> >
> > dave
> >
>
> You know, I'm not sure. I'll measure a couple shavings and see what I'm
> getting this weekend since I'm curious now. I don't really have a good feel
> for how thick a few thousands of an inch is. The thickness of magazine
> paper would be in the ballpark.
>
> -Chris

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:26:44 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
>>>pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.
>>
>>They didn't have rasps and sandpaper back then?
>>
>You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
>an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.
>

Thank you.

But its not that difficult. Its done all the time.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
> FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
> missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>

and yet, as they say, the proof is in the tasting! ;)
I can't see it either, but fact is I've done it many, many times.
And it works. In fact this very same subject (of the salient blade)
has been the target of arduous discussion in the old tools list.
And no one has reached a satisfactory conclusion. All we seem
to agree on is that it works...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>the only people "pissed off" are the cranky SOB's.

Oh, yes, of course. The problem *must* be with EVERYBODY ELSE. It couldn't
possibly be with YOU.

> Everyone else who
>has contributed to this thread has been a gentleman. Perhaps you and
>cramer could use a little "charm"?

WTF?? BAD, suggesting that *others* "could use a little charm"?
Pot, kettle, black. Physician, heal thyself. Etc.

>
>For a while I thought this thread would avoid the nasty comments that a
>handful of the Wreckers are wont to make. Thanks to all who contributed
>USEFUL, ON-TOPIC posts.
>
You can dish it out (as your posts of about ten days ago clearly illustrated),
but you can't take it.

>Olguin, you have lowered yourself to Cramer's level. I didn't think
>anyone else was in his league. QED

Naw. He was simply pointing out, more politely than most, that you should
develop the habit of seeking out information on your own, instead of yelping
for help on each and every one of the all too frequent occasions when you find
yourself bewildered.
>
>dave
>
>Patrick Olguin wrote:
>snip rude comments

If you think that was "rude", Dave, you've led a *very* sheltered life.

["rude" comments restored below]

Dave,

This is why you piss-off people like Scott (and the faceless rabble,
too tired to play tard-ball with you anymore). I plugged this into
Google:

"hand plane differently jointer group:rec.woodworking"

And got this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hand+plane+differently+jointer+group:rec.
woodworking+group:rec.woodworking&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.
woodworking&safe=off&selm=Pine.SUN.3.96.971023184113.26434E-100000%40galileo.
cris.com&rnum=1

Now, this isn't to say you're not allowed to ask a question. Any
significant discussion is liable to be cyclical (just keep reading
those woodworking mags for a few years), but the most minor effort
(and anyone's part) will at least allow you to begin to have a sniff
of a clue of a partial brain-cell of an idea of a notion of what the
hell you're talking about instead of the handtool equivalent of asking
in alt.astronomy: Geeze fellers, why is the sky cullerd blue? (BTW -
it's because the light wave-length our eye detects as blue is the most
widely scattered by our gaseous atmosphere). There's a decent
explanation here: http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/bluesky/index.html.

It isn't rocket science, Dave. DAMHIKT.

O'Deen


--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

They still are.


"Wood Butcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LaTsb.142677$9E1.722008@attbi_s52...
>> Back when the term was initiated all self moving vehicles, including the
> electrics and steamers, were called automobiles.
>
>

On 13 Nov 2003 11:27:02 -0800, [email protected] (Patrick Olguin)
wrote:

>This is why you piss-off people like Scott (and the faceless rabble,
>too tired to play tard-ball with you anymore).

BAD calls 'em "miscreants."

I wonder if he meant its anagram, "nice smart."

(o'course, to be fair, he may have meant the anagramatic version,
"scat miner.")

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:24:11 -0000, "Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Richards" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>: You've made a very good point. If the blade projects beneath the plane,
>: the piece of wood that you're working on will never be perfectly flat
>: because the reference surface is not the same as the cutting edge.

Also, as I mentioned before in this same thread, there are Japanese
planes. They are designed just this way, the front of the sole,
forwards of the blade, is a bit higher than the back. THe back is at
the same level as the blade.

Or are we only talkin' about American planes here? Sorry, if so :-/

James
[email protected]
http://[email protected]

the only people "pissed off" are the cranky SOB's. Everyone else who
has contributed to this thread has been a gentleman. Perhaps you and
cramer could use a little "charm"?

For a while I thought this thread would avoid the nasty comments that a
handful of the Wreckers are wont to make. Thanks to all who contributed
USEFUL, ON-TOPIC posts.

Olguin, you have lowered yourself to Cramer's level. I didn't think
anyone else was in his league. QED

dave

Patrick Olguin wrote:
snip rude comments

as usual Scott is worthless at answering any woodworking questions,
which is why he is my premier plonkee.

I'm trying to understand the mechanics of planing to understand how I'd
get an edge as flat as on a power jointer, using a, say, low angle block
plane.

dave

PLEASE try not to quote him... :)

dave

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

> Scott Cramer <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>On 12 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
>>
>
>
> [... How is it possible that a hand plane joints? ]
>
>
>>You are a certifiable idiot.
>
>
> Not because of that question.
>
>
>>Why do you think a long plane is called a jointer plane?
>
>
> Just that a jointer plane is called jointer plane is *not* an
> explanation of how it works, and it is by no means obvoius that
> jointing with a jointer plane does work.
>

"Lawrence A. Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> It is
> absolutlely incredible how sensitive the human body is; you can easily
> feel a hair that is 1 thousandths of a inch thick. You can see that
> closely also.
>

There was a time when I "could" see that closely. Sigh.

Cheers,
Eric

please tell the dougster that my alleged shortcomings do nothing, nada,
nyet, to negate Cramer's disgusting off-topic personal attacks.

how can he argue with me unless you are going to keep quoting him?

At least my glass is half full.

dave

[email protected] wrote:
snip
> um doug? you waging a full scale argument with a half wit? :-}

so there is no point to getting a low angle block plane to take a swipe
or two across the edge of a power jointed board to get that sucker dead
on flat and smooth? I've read articles stating that the author will
power joint a board and then run a plane over it to make the edge even
better than what came off the jointer. Does that require a long
jointing plane. No other plane will suffice?

If that IS the case, what use will I get out of a $160 Veritas plane?

thanks.

DAVE

Hitch wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
>>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that
>>as the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
>>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
>>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>>
>>A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
>>projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
>>long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
>>grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
>>found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened"
>>the straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got.
>>How long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say
>>a 2' board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to
>>have a reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly
>>as you plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an
>>essentially flat board to start with, and know that it is flat? In
>>other words, when I use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have
>>to check it. Can I do the same thing with a plane, or do you have to
>>stop, eyeball it with a reference straight-edge, and then touch it up
>>an little here, a little there?
>>
>>Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
> Read the sources listed below, but short of that:
>
> - jointer planes run 22" to 24" long, generally;
>
> - you can make nice, flat surfaces for joining with them and lots of
> practice;
>
> - you can use the edge of the plane as your straightedge while planing;
>
> - there are some tricks to creating joinable board edges (e.g., jointing
> both boards at once to remove one variable in the process).
>
>
>

Marc,

That sounds simple enough even a lout such as yours truly can understand.

The downside to this knowledge is that one paltry plane isn't gonna
"cut" it. :) Lord help me if they ever cancel my Visa card...


dave

Marc wrote:

> The plane removes all waves in the wood with wavelengths shorter than the
> length of the plane. If you plane with a 24 inch jointer plane you will
> only be left with waves longer than 24 inches. So it works if it is flat to
> within accepted tolerances.
>
>

"Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> : ............................... Longer planes,
> : since they ride the high points, can not get down into the lows to plane
> : them. So what you end up doing is knocking of those high spots. It still
> : takes a bit of skill but it is easier with a longer plane. I'm not much
> for
> : explaining things but you probably get the idea.
>
> Coming late into this ..............
>
> It can be shown theoretically, and many know from experience, that all
hand
> planes can plane a concave edge. The radius of the curve (assuming it to
be
> circular, which it might not be) is proportional to the square of the
length
> of the plane divided by the set.
>
So a 22" jointer set for a .001 shaving (a very skilled user) would have a
radius of 484,000 inches!!! That's gotta be pretty close to flat.

> Hence the longer the plane, the nearer the curve is to a straight line.
>
> This assumes normal operation of course, ie trying to plane a straight
edge
> (ie not a convex one) with one continuous shaving from end to end.
>
> Most of us want to form a slight concavity when jointing panels where
cramps
> hold the material while the glue sets. This has the advantage that the
joint
> is more likely to stay closed at the ends as the ends of the panels
shrink
> in consequene of long term seasonal changes.
>
There's some that hold with this, some that don't. Graham Blackburn is one
that don't. See a previous item in this thread where I describe his "rub
joint". OK, I hadn't gotten that far yet, just look below. :-) I think
Graham just uses white glue. Go figure. Guess that's why they wait a bit
before setting the joint aside to dry. Personally, I'm still not absolutely
sold either way. However, there is a certain elegance to a low stress joint
that appeals to my sensitivity.

> Depending on how 'perfectly' is defined, it is possible by some planing of
> the ends to get two edges straight enough to exactly mate without cramp
> pressure. This is how in the past, the workers made 'rubbed' joints with
> instant-grabbing 'Scotch' glue (or to the Murricans, 'hide' glue).
>
> Hot glue was applied to both edges, the boards were rubbed together to
> remove surplus glue and the panel was laid aside to dry. I've seen men
> show off by gluing a rubbed joint and immediately throwing the panel to
the
> floor. In my youth I've done it to impress the multitude.
>
> More about panel jointing on my web site - 'Planing Notes' - 'Rubbed
> Jointing'.
>
> Jeff G
>
> --
> Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
> Email address is username@ISP
> username is amgron
> ISP is clara.co.uk
> Website www.amgron.clara.net
>
>
>
>

<g> Why don't YOU show me how to tame that bad boy?

dave

Michael Baglio

> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:55 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion. I just ordered the
>>Veritas low angle smoother...
>
>
> Some 12' #3 Ipe, and you're all set.

Hey folks, think about this. Obviously using a hand plane for jointing a
board possible to do since for along long time that was the ONLY way to do
it. You know, back when there was no electric and stuff? If you cant get it
to work using a handplane its either the wrong tool or you. Simple as that!

Jim

is your neck red?

dave

Wood Butcher wrote:

> Are your eyes brown?
>
> Art
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:GVSsb.13602
>
>>At least my glass is half full.
>>
>
>
>

I don't think so. But it was a nice try.
Automobile is auto-mobile or self moving/motion. Just like autograph is
your self written mark and autobiography is your self written story.
Back when the term was initiated all self moving vehicles, including the
electrics and steamers, were called automobiles.

Art

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> 'Automobile' is actually a corruption of 'Ottomobile.'
>

So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna
be judged by the company you keep.


I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge
of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your
flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your
prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of
knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows
me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to
slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.

In the future, should you care to distance yourself from your ill-bred
friends, I'm sure we can both dispense with this time-wasting discourse.

The wrong approach? You? Like a drunk driving the wrong way on I-5 at
90 mph with his lights out.

> getting all this shop-time, and so naturally he has questions. Could
>it be
> I really am just a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, >egotistical,
> selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard?

In a word...yes. But that's just one man's opinion. Don't let me ruin
your day.

dave

And one that BADly needs some soles in his hole.

Art

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> there are a few guys around here with holes in their SOULS...
>
>
>
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> snip
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
> > souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
> > that guys hang underneath of?
> snip
>

Bay Area Dave wrote:
> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> there?
>
> Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
> dave
>

It sounds like you might benefit from a little light reading about the
function and use of hangplanes. Taunton Press has a good volume by
Garrett Hack titled, The Hand Plane Book (ISBN 1-56158-317-0).


Tim

Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion. I just ordered the
Veritas low angle smoother...

dave

Bay Area Dave wrote:

> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> there?
>
> Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
> dave
>

or, if I had money falling out of my jeans, I could get an edge plane
from Lee Valley! I just got their new catalog yesterday. I found a
plane whose sole purpose is to edge joint. $125 or so IIRC. I should
get my smoother in a week or so.

dave

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Good point, Chris. Creating a bevel would be another concern of mine as
>>a newbie Neander. Maybe I could put some "training wheels" on my plane
>>(when I actually GET one) to keep it on the straight and narrow.
>
>
> It's called a jointer fence. The Stanley 386 is a good one. Or you
> can cut a rebate on a board and clamp it to the cheek of the plane.
> Little tiny C-clamps would be OK. You could drill and tap the
> cheeks for attaching a jointer fence--I,m surprised none of the major
> plane makers ever did as a standard feature. Don't know of any
> monor ones who did either.
>

there is a lot of anal talk around here. why are there so many
"preverts"? NO, that is NOT a typo; anyone care to guess the origin of
that usage? Non baby-boomers need not apply...

dave

Wood Butcher wrote:

> And one that BADly needs some soles in his hole.
>
> Art
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>there are a few guys around here with holes in their SOULS...
>>
>>
>>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>snip
>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
>>>souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
>>>that guys hang underneath of?
>>
>>snip
>>
>
>
>

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that
> as the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened"
> the straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got.
> How long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say
> a 2' board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to
> have a reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly
> as you plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an
> essentially flat board to start with, and know that it is flat? In
> other words, when I use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have
> to check it. Can I do the same thing with a plane, or do you have to
> stop, eyeball it with a reference straight-edge, and then touch it up
> an little here, a little there?
>
> Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
> dave
>

Read the sources listed below, but short of that:

- jointer planes run 22" to 24" long, generally;

- you can make nice, flat surfaces for joining with them and lots of
practice;

- you can use the edge of the plane as your straightedge while planing;

- there are some tricks to creating joinable board edges (e.g., jointing
both boards at once to remove one variable in the process).



--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"

On 12 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:

> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> there?

You are a certifiable idiot.

Why do you think a long plane is called a jointer plane?

On 12 Nov 2003, Juergen Hannappel spake unto rec.woodworking:

> Scott Cramer <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 12 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
>>
>
> [... How is it possible that a hand plane joints? ]
>
>> You are a certifiable idiot.
>
> Not because of that question.

You are new here ;-)

>> Why do you think a long plane is called a jointer plane?
>
> Just that a jointer plane is called jointer plane is *not* an
> explanation of how it works, and it is by no means obvoius that
> jointing with a jointer plane does work.

For the first part, I agree, the name does not explain the working of
a jointer plane.

'Automobile' doesn't tell us anything about internal combustion or
differential gearing, however, we understand it to mean a self-propelled
vehicle. Nor do we need to understand how it works to know THAT it works.

I will make the huge assumptive leap that a power jointer is called a
power jointer because it performs the task performed by its predecessor,
the jointer plane. If, by 'jointing', we mean 'truing an edge square to
the face of a board', than I think it is indeed obvious that the expected
result of using a jointer plane is a squared, true edge.

Forgive my sarcasm in the initial post. BAD's unwillingness to make
any effort whatsoever in finding an answer to any question that pops into
his head, other than asking someone else to take the trouble, is like a
blackberry seed in a wisdom tooth. Not painful, but persisitently
annoying.

Scott

Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 12 Nov 2003, Juergen Hannappel spake unto rec.woodworking:
>
>> Scott Cramer <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 12 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
>>>
>>
>> [... How is it possible that a hand plane joints? ]
>>
>>> You are a certifiable idiot.
>>
>> Not because of that question.
>
> You are new here ;-)
>
>>> Why do you think a long plane is called a jointer plane?
>>
>> Just that a jointer plane is called jointer plane is *not* an
>> explanation of how it works, and it is by no means obvoius that
>> jointing with a jointer plane does work.
>
> For the first part, I agree, the name does not explain the
> working of
> a jointer plane.
>
> 'Automobile' doesn't tell us anything about internal
> combustion or
> differential gearing, however, we understand it to mean a
> self-propelled vehicle. Nor do we need to understand how it works to
> know THAT it works.
>
> I will make the huge assumptive leap that a power jointer is
> called a
> power jointer because it performs the task performed by its
> predecessor, the jointer plane. If, by 'jointing', we mean 'truing an
> edge square to the face of a board', than I think it is indeed obvious
> that the expected result of using a jointer plane is a squared, true
> edge.

But BAD was asking about straightness, not squareness.


> Forgive my sarcasm in the initial post. BAD's unwillingness
> to make
> any effort whatsoever in finding an answer to any question that pops
> into his head, other than asking someone else to take the trouble, is
> like a blackberry seed in a wisdom tooth. Not painful, but
> persisitently annoying.
>
> Scott

On 13 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave whimpered unto rec.woodworking:

> please tell the dougster that my alleged shortcomings do nothing, nada,
> nyet, to negate Cramer's disgusting off-topic personal attacks.
>
> how can he argue with me unless you are going to keep quoting him?
>
> At least my glass is half full.

Was it something I said?

>> um doug? you waging a full scale argument with a half wit? :-}

The hallmark of BAD's presence here is the way he blunders unarmed
into a battle of wits.

On 13 Nov 2003, Wood Butcher spake unto rec.woodworking:

> I don't think so. But it was a nice try.
> Automobile is auto-mobile or self moving/motion. Just like autograph is
> your self written mark and autobiography is your self written story.
> Back when the term was initiated all self moving vehicles, including the
> electrics and steamers, were called automobiles.
>
> Art
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> 'Automobile' is actually a corruption of 'Ottomobile.'

And I suppose the bra was NOT invented by a guy named Titzling? Or
the toilet by Thomas Crapper?

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> writes:
>or, if I had money falling out of my jeans, I could get an edge plane
>from Lee Valley! I just got their new catalog yesterday. I found a
>plane whose sole purpose is to edge joint. $125 or so IIRC. I should
>get my smoother in a week or so.

Dave,

Please note that the edge plane from lee valley cannot be used
to prepare an edge in place of jointing. The edge plane will only assure
the edge is square to the face. It will follow hills and valleys
along the length of the board. You must still joint the board first.

It may be useful to eliminate the scalloping left by a power jointer,
if one takes a very fine cut.

scott

No; more like an anagram made from 'live'.

dave

Tom Watson wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2003 11:27:02 -0800, [email protected] (Patrick Olguin)
> wrote:
>
>
>>This is why you piss-off people like Scott (and the faceless rabble,
>>too tired to play tard-ball with you anymore).
>
>
> BAD calls 'em "miscreants."
>
> I wonder if he meant its anagram, "nice smart."
>
> (o'course, to be fair, he may have meant the anagramatic version,
> "scat miner.")
>
>

Steve,

Now THAT'S a finely detailed description of when and with what to clean
up a board. Thanks for the succinctly written explanation of what you
use, and the reasons for bothering to plane a jointed surface. You have
explained this for me in practical terms that I relate to.

To summarize: well tuned, sharp bladed jointer, run at optimum pace,
provides a perfect edge ready for glue-up. Dull blades, less than
stellar technique requires a bit of touch-up.

How am I doing? :)

dave

Steve Wilson wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I will often take a plane to clean up the edge after I've run a board
> through on my jointer (PM 60). When the knives on my jointer are
> fresh and recently set, the surface left by the jointer is very, very
> good and runing a hand plane over the surface does little to improve
> things. However, as the knives wear a bit, maybe develop a nick or
> two, develop a slight crown or hollow (were talking maybe .002"), or
> if I run a board over the jointer too fast, using a hand plane will
> improve things a bunch. So now I use a plane to clean up edge joints
> all the time. Do you need a long plane (i.e. #6, #7, #8) to do this?
> No, because the edge is square to a face and straight. The plane,
> finely tuned, is just there to take off a whisper thin shaving to
> clean up slight imperfections in the surface. Now, sometimes the
> edge, generally due to a technique screw up on my part, needs a little
> more work. Then I make sure I pull out a jointer. What plane do I
> usually use? I have two #7's (a new Clifton and an Type 11
> Stanley/Bailey) in my arsenal and I have the Type 11 tuned to take a
> very thin shaving (IIRC .0015") and I leave a 386 jointer fence
> attached to it always. So, when I clean up a jointed edge before a
> glue up, or to fix a bonehead error, I just reach for my Bailey #7
> w/386 fence and pass it down the edge. That way I'm consistent and the
> edge always comes out great. But in reality, if the edge is straight
> and square then any finely set plane will work for cleaning up slight
> machine marks (generally scallops)

I'm sure you would be heartbroken if I gave you the snub! :)

dave

[email protected] wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:43:02 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>please tell the dougster that my alleged shortcomings do nothing, nada,
>>nyet, to negate Cramer's disgusting off-topic personal attacks.
>>
>>how can he argue with me unless you are going to keep quoting him?
>>
>>At least my glass is half full.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>snip
>>
>>>um doug? you waging a full scale argument with a half wit? :-}
>
>
> why hello BAD i was worried you may have plonked me too. i can sleep
> better now thank you. :-} skeez

I'd rather think about Victoria Secrets models than a female carpenter!!
What kind of image do YOU conjure up when thinking of a female
carpenter??

dave

brocpuffs wrote:

>>>BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
>>>sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.
>>
>>I know for a fact its at least 60 years old! lol
>>
>>
>>Have a nice week...
>
>
> I'm not gonna keep this thread going so I will not answer, except to
> say we were talking about a lot older than 60 years. AFAIK-
>
> ah heck, let's talk about female carpenters or somethin'..
>
> James
> [email protected]
> http://[email protected]
>

When the blade takes a light cut, do you think we are talking on the
order of 2 or 3 thous?

dave

Christopher wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
>>FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
>>missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>>
>>dave
>
>
> What you're saying is correct but doesn't matter in the end. I think part
> of it is that your iron is just barely below the sole of the plane anyway.
> If you were taking thick shavings you might have problems but it's not like
> your jointer is pivoting on the iron and one end of the sole is not making
> contact or anything like that. I worked some Mahogany over the weekend
> starting with a #7 then working through my #5 1/4W and the #4. I laid one
> piece on top of another and could only tell where the joint was by the
> change in grain. It disappeared, and without any clamping force being
> applied.
>
> -Chris
>
>

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:44:07 -0500, Trent© wrote:


> No...he's being his usual prick of a self again.

Is this a slap at Charlie or a compliment to Doug?

Dave,

Length of plane? Depends on how uneven the surface, the further apart the high
spots the longer plane you should use. I do all my jointing with a #7 which is
around 2' long.

Yes you have to look at your work but not till you're fairly close to being
done. You can read the surface by how the plane is performing and the shavings.
When you're getting a full width shaving the full length of the board, you're
close. You're eye can judge the straightness of the board but you'll need a
small square to judge for perpendicular.

A trick I use is to skew my jointer plane slightly so it exagerates how
perpendicular the planes is to the work.

David





In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave
says...
>
>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
>the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
>A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
>projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
>long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
>grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
>found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
>straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
>long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
>board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
>reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
>plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
>board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
>use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
>the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
>reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
>there?
>
>Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
>dave
>

Bay Area Dave wrote:
> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> there?
>
> Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
> dave
>
You've made a very good point. If the blade projects beneath the plane,
the piece of wood that you're working on will never be perfectly flat
because the reference surface is not the same as the cutting edge.

To cut the wood perfectly flat, it seems that the plane should be
divided into two separate pieces. The part of the plane that is in
front of the blade could be raised to the height of the cut desired.
The part of the plane that is behind the blade should be set so that the
blade and the sole of the plane are at the same level.

It might help to visualize a router table set-up as an edge jointer. To
avoid snipe, the outfeed fence and the cutter are in line. The infeed
fence is moved back a little (the depth of cut desired). Couldn't the
toe of the plane be thought of as the infeed fence on a router table and
the heel of the plane be thought of as the outfeed fence?

brocpuffs wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:39 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
>>FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
>>missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>>
>>dave
>
>
> You cats have never used a jointer plane properly, obviously.
>
> Sure, any plane will hit the high spots first. It will continue to
> take down the high spots till they are at the same level as the lowest
> low spot, after which you have a clean, straight edge.
>
> Done it lots of times, not dreaming!
>
> If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
> pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.
>
> James
> [email protected]
> http://[email protected]

From a practical standpoint, you're absolutely right. Mathmatically, a
shallow cut with a long soled plane would minimize the blade hanging
from the bottom of the plane to the point that operator ability would
determine the quality of the cut; however, from a theoretical
standpoint, the fact that the blade is the lowest point on a plane would
seem to show that flatness could never be achieved.

BTW, I often use a handplane to clean up the edge on boards that I run
too fast through the jointer.

"Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| I don't really have a good feel for how thick a
| few thousands of an inch is.

Blond or flaxen human hair is between 0.0006 and 0.002 inch.
Black hair is between 0.002 and 0.006 inch.

I don't plane, but I don't see why a properly plane with a high-quality edge
and a wide sole plate can't remove a shaving on the order of 0.005 inch.
The question is why you'd want to, in general. I can see why joinery would
want local tolerances in the mil range, but the porous and elastic nature of
wood suggests that such high tolerances overall are wasted effort.

Any milling operation, such as that done by a powered planer or joiner, will
remove material using a circular cut that digs down into the material and
then emerges from the surface again. The surface finish thus produced is a
convolution of circular arcs, as seen in a section contrary to the "lay".
This brings up what machinists call "feed and speed", which, together with
the properties of the material, determine the geometry of the final finish.

Obviously you've discovered that if your "feed" is too fast, you get a
noticeable set of peaks and valleys. Slowing the feed rate helps, up to a
point. If the feed is too slow, your chip won't retain enough strength,
while still attached, to correctly resist the cut, and it will tear or
fracture and possibly pit the underlying surface.

A linear plane solves that problem but introduces questions of smoothness
along the direction perpendicular to the stroke. The surface finish in that
direction will be composed of piecewise linear segments corresponding to the
"roll" of the plane (rotation along its long axis) as it straddles or
bridges previous cuts.

That's for flatness in the sub-inch realm. For flatness in the
dozens-inches realm you have to look at your plane soles, your joiner
tables, and the suitability of your tool fixtures. Highly elastic materials
such as wood will "hog" during machining if not properly supported and/or
restrained.

--Jay

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> the only people "pissed off" are the cranky SOB's. Everyone else who
> has contributed to this thread has been a gentleman. Perhaps you and
> cramer could use a little "charm"?
>
> For a while I thought this thread would avoid the nasty comments that a
> handful of the Wreckers are wont to make. Thanks to all who
> contributed USEFUL, ON-TOPIC posts.

How nice of you to thank me, Dave! I mean, you are thanking *me* too,
aren't you? Or perhaps you didn't click on that link, which was indeedy
chock-full of useful on-topic information? Or did you click on it, and
dismiss it because it was accompanied by some less-than-praising text? Or
did you click on it and your eyes glazed over? Or in the middle of your
whining pouting retort, you skipped it all together? It really was an
answer to your original question. So if you're *not* thanking me, what
gives? I'm just trying to help here.
>
> Olguin, you have lowered yourself to Cramer's level. I didn't think
> anyone else was in his league. QED

QED? You mean as in the Latin: Quod erat demonstrandum? This is usually
appended to the text of a mathematical proof, meaning, "what has been
shown." So let me see if I follow correctly - I call you on being
essentially a lazy, shiftless, helpless, hopeless can-barely-wipe-his-ass
cluetoken, and provide some evidence to back it up (e.g - a simple search
yields the answer), and all you're able to recognize is that some "cranky
SOB," is picking on you and so you file me in your BAD man folder, compare
me to Cramer and call it proof?

Sorry Dave, but that dog won't hold water.

Look, I admit it's a guilty pleasure to read Scott putting more dents in
your head. I think he's damn funny, clever and all that - he even appears
to enjoy woodworking (and know a bit about it as well); his participation
clearly extends beyond his penchant for noticing when your pants are down in
the newsgroup and splaying the spotlight onnit. Trouble is, you seem to
only be able to absorb that someone's being a big meanie, and therefore you
miss the message... as you apparently missed mine. Again and again and
again.

Maybe I'm just using the wrong approach. What do you think, people? Could
it be I'm being too harsh by slapping the back of Dave's head to get his
attention and then attempting to provide some information? Could it be a
kindler, gentler approach might work? Maybe I'm just jealous that he's
getting all this shop-time, and so naturally he has questions. Could it be
I really am just a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, egotistical,
selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard?

Could I have been wrong all along?







Naaaaaah!

(apologies to Steve Martin)
O'Deen

OBWW - a sharp block plane works for just about any kind of cleaning of
pesky milling marks on a power-jointed edge. Use a light touch and a sharp
iron. A smooth plane is preferable for use on a jointed face. To answer
someone else's question on the need for such thin, fluffy shavings (like
less than 0.001"), when it comes to very difficult woods to plane, like
quilted maple or curly cherry and curly bubinga (my three nemises),
ultra-thin shavings are a must, else you end up with very dissatisfying
tear-out.

Block planes (planes with their bevels up) are also easier for the
planing/sharpening newbie, as they are less sensitive to a rounded bevel -
the bane of the bench plane user. A rounded bevel is a problem for bench
planes that are removing very thin shavings, as it reduces the clearance
angle of the blade, causing the blade to cease cutting as the clearance
angle goes to zero (from repeated honings/roundings). Ideally, one
shouldn't round-over those bevels, but it does happen. Simple ways to avoid
it are to hollow grind the bevel (some nerds call it a bezel) and to use a
hard felt wheel as opposed to a muslin wheel for honing. A leather wheel
works well also.

"Patrick Olguin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| QED? You mean as in the Latin: Quod erat demonstrandum? This is usually
| appended to the text of a mathematical proof, meaning, "what has been
| shown."

Nitpick: "quod erat demonstrandum" better translates as "which was to have
been shown" -- a subtle difference. If you want to prove that x = y, you
write a proof that starts at first principles and then somehow gets to the
expression "x = y". You label that last line to signify that you have
successfully arrived at the place you had previously designed to go.

"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
> oxidizer, nozzle and a match?

If ya use the right oxidizer and fuel, ya don't need a steenking match -
just a patented butterfly valve and a memo to get the hell outta the way.
Unfortunately, rocket science has been "ruined," by the introduction of
oodles of software, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity, uncertainty,
fear and loathing, and statements like, "It isn't wrong - we just haven't
made up our minds yet." Not unlike rec.woodworking on the odd day.

O'Deen

OBWW - screw it. I'm gonna go home early and do some obww on my own time. ;)

"Patrick Olguin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| >
| > And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
| > oxidizer, nozzle and a match?
|
| If ya use the right oxidizer and fuel, ya don't need a steenking
| match

If you use the right fuel you don't even need an oxidizer, just a good
catalyst.

In any case it's like saying woodworking is just a hunk of wood and a sharp
metal edge. The devil in both woodworking and rocketry is in the
details--many of which will kill you if not adequately respected.

--Jay

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:17:14 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
wrote:


>>You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
>>an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.
>>
>
>Thank you.
>
>But its not that difficult. Its done all the time.
>
>
>Have a nice week...
>

I don't have facts, and these don't always count in this kind of
argument anyway.

BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.

James
[email protected]
http://[email protected]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:42:41 -0800, Patrick Olguin wrote:


> Maybe I'm just using the wrong approach. What do you think, people? Could
> it be I'm being too harsh by slapping the back of Dave's head to get his
> attention and then attempting to provide some information? Could it be a
> kindler, gentler approach might work? Maybe I'm just jealous that he's
> getting all this shop-time, and so naturally he has questions. Could it be
> I really am just a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, egotistical,
> selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard?
>
> Could I have been wrong all along?

> Naaaaaah!

It seems a motion has been made for a vote. I second it and also vote
"Naaaaaah".

-Doug

Hey, I started at "ground zero" last year in this WW thing, so I MUST be
learning something, despite your pessimistic prognostication. :)

I characterized your style as "flowery"; not you. <g>

I do pay attention when the message is about woodworking. I've little
to no patience with extricating a tidbit of info from a sea of
irrelevant muck. (this is in general -- I'm not saying what you wrote
here is muck, at all.)

dave

Patrick Olguin wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna
>>be judged by the company you keep.
>>
>>
>>I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge
>>of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your
>>flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your
>>prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of
>>knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows
>>me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to
>>slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.
>
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm. So tough love is not your bag. Sucks for you, because in
> your "failing to learn," anything new, you obviously skipped a
> fundamental of planing, which was mentioned in that six-year old post,
> and still holds true today. To wit - that one should maintain
> downward pressure on the knob (toe) of the plane at the beginning of
> the stroke, and then make sure to switch that pressure to the tote
> (heel) near the end. This will prevent crowning of the edge.
>
> It's a pity the mental equivalent of walking and chewing gum prevents
> you from absorbing new knowledge, but I'm sure it won't ruin your day.
> Enjoy your new plane when it arrives. Try not to use it on melamine.
>
> O'Deen
>
> Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't
> mind.

Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> 'Automobile' doesn't tell us anything about internal combustion or
> differential gearing, however, we understand it to mean a self-propelled
> vehicle. Nor do we need to understand how it works to know THAT it works.

The formal scientific name for the thermodynamic cycle on which the
4 cycle engine runs is the 'Otto' cycle, named for a German engineer.

'Automobile' is actually a corruption of 'Ottomobile.'

--

FF

;-)

Hitch <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Read the sources listed below, but short of that:
>
> - jointer planes run 22" to 24" long, generally;
>
> - you can make nice, flat surfaces for joining with them and lots of
> practice;
>
> - you can use the edge of the plane as your straightedge while planing;
>
> - there are some tricks to creating joinable board edges (e.g., jointing
> both boards at once to remove one variable in the process).

I'll add that an electric jointer uses a rotary cutter that results in
a scalloped surface. You can do better with a handplane.

Or at least some folks can.

--

FF

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Good point, Chris. Creating a bevel would be another concern of mine as
> a newbie Neander. Maybe I could put some "training wheels" on my plane
> (when I actually GET one) to keep it on the straight and narrow.

It's called a jointer fence. The Stanley 386 is a good one. Or you
can cut a rebate on a board and clamp it to the cheek of the plane.
Little tiny C-clamps would be OK. You could drill and tap the
cheeks for attaching a jointer fence--I,m surprised none of the major
plane makers ever did as a standard feature. Don't know of any
monor ones who did either.

--

FF

Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 13 Nov 2003, Wood Butcher spake unto rec.woodworking:
>
> > I don't think so. But it was a nice try.
> > Automobile is auto-mobile or self moving/motion. Just like autograph is
> > your self written mark and autobiography is your self written story.
> > Back when the term was initiated all self moving vehicles, including the
> > electrics and steamers, were called automobiles.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> 'Automobile' is actually a corruption of 'Ottomobile.'
>
> And I suppose the bra was NOT invented by a guy named Titzling? Or
> the toilet by Thomas Crapper?

No fair! I put a smiley in my post.

--

FF

The Guy <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> It sounds like you might benefit from a little light reading about the
> function and use of hangplanes.
^^^^^^^^^^^

Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
that guys hang underneath of?

--

FF

"Don't forget, at least one misspelling is mandatory in
any spelling flame."

"Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Chris, you understand my dilemma exactly. If I get a smoother (sorry, I
> > had misspoken earlier when I referred to a block plane) as my first
> > quality plane (Veritas $160) I was wondering if I could smooth a power
> > jointed edge to perfection. The edge would already be flat, but the
> > object of further work would be to remove machining marks, as you noted.
> > Somebody understands me! :)
> >
> > dave
> >
>
> My guess is that if you are very practiced with a handplane you could
> improve the edge slightly. I've been practicing a lot lately and though
I'm
> getting better, I doubt I would actually improve the results provided by a
> power jointer. It would probably be a bit smoother, but I'm not sure I
> could maintain square without some kind of shooting board. I actually
> disagree with Charlie Self below where he says a jointer plane would be
> better than a smooth plane here. Being a newbie, I'll probably get eaten
> alive for doing so but that's OK. I think that taking a shaving of even
> thickness, down the entire length of the board, will maintain the same
level
> of flatness produced by the jointer. It's introducing an unwanted bevel I
> would worry about rather than making the piece concave or convex.
>
> -Chris
>
>

Bevel... That's because most people try and joint a board by mounting it in
a vise and setting the plane on top. The way it was done when craftsmen
didn't have tailed apprentices was to put the board on a shooting board and
lay the plane on its side. Takes all the guesswork out. Of course, the
tools have to be correctly set up. The plane's side has to be square to the
sole. That's the way Graham Blackburn's master taught him, and they didn't
use tailed apprentices in that shop.

Mr. Blackburn teaches a joinery class several times a year. In the class,
they do a rub joint. Joint two boards, with hand planes, spread a small
amount of glue evenly across the edge of one of the boards. Place the other
board on it, offset about 4-6 inches. Slide the second board until the ends
are even, using feel to ensure that the faces of the boards are as close as
level as possible (The human finger is capable of feeling less than .001
in.). Wait a few minutes, then set the boards aside to dry. Notice, no
clamps. The next day, they break the joint. It never breaks on the glue
line. No clamps, no biscuits, no dowels. Just a well planed joint and so
little glue there is not even any squeeze out.

Cheers,
Eric

"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
>
> You are a certifiable idiot.
>
> Why do you think a long plane is called a jointer plane?

Scott - I'm no fan of BAD. But I've wondered the same thing. Especially at
the end grain edges.

The plane removes all waves in the wood with wavelengths shorter than the
length of the plane. If you plane with a 24 inch jointer plane you will
only be left with waves longer than 24 inches. So it works if it is flat to
within accepted tolerances.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:58:07 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:39 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
>>FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
>>missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>>
>>dave
>
>You cats have never used a jointer plane properly, obviously.
>
>Sure, any plane will hit the high spots first. It will continue to
>take down the high spots till they are at the same level as the lowest
>low spot, after which you have a clean, straight edge.
>
>Done it lots of times, not dreaming!
>
>If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
>pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.

They didn't have rasps and sandpaper back then?


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:38:11 GMT, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:21:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>the only people "pissed off" are the cranky SOB's.
>>
>>Oh, yes, of course. The problem *must* be with EVERYBODY ELSE. It couldn't
>>possibly be with YOU.
>>
>>> Everyone else who
>>>has contributed to this thread has been a gentleman. Perhaps you and
>>>cramer could use a little "charm"?
>>
>>WTF?? BAD, suggesting that *others* "could use a little charm"?
>>Pot, kettle, black. Physician, heal thyself. Etc.
>>
>>>
>um doug? you waging a full scale argument with a half wit? :-}

No...he's being his usual prick of a self again.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

"Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> When the blade takes a light cut, do you think we are talking on the
>> order of 2 or 3 thous?
>>
>> dave
>>
>
>You know, I'm not sure. I'll measure a couple shavings and see what I'm
>getting this weekend since I'm curious now. I don't really have a good feel
>for how thick a few thousands of an inch is. The thickness of magazine
>paper would be in the ballpark.

I did this a while back, and hope I am remembering correctly, but I
think I was getting shavings of about .002, a little less than 1/2 the
thickness of a sheet of typing paper.

BTW, on the original question, I don't think it is as bizarre as some
do (although using a short plane for this purpose is). I think that
the geometry of a hand plane is _in theory_ less likely to give a
straight edge than a jointer.

However, technique is all, with both tools. I have never found jointer
edges straight to less than .002", so I don't feel that my #08 is
likely to make the edge less straight. In fact, in my experience, for
a long edge, the plane is much more likely to improve straightness,
but maybe that's just my relative abilities with the two tools.

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Are your eyes brown?

Art

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:GVSsb.13602
>
> At least my glass is half full.
>

George,

Not sure as to your last point about the grief, but it's entirely
possible. I don't remember the specifics. Right now my take on a
jointer is that you get two flat surfaces out of the deal. One edge,
one face. Then you go to the TS to true up the other edge. Then you go
to the thickness planer to make the untouched face parallel and flat.
And to avoid flamers, take some material off both sides of the board,
rather than just the side that I mark an 'X' on. :)

My question is more related to starting with a totally flat edge. The
idea is that some woodworkers like to run a hand plane over a jointed
edge for that "edge" (pun intended) in quality of a glue up joint. So
what I want to know is if you are going to just cut a smidge from the
edge with a smaller plane, do you end up with a worse edge than if you
just rely on a well power jointed edge? Is anyone understanding what I
getting at? (Cramer, for god's sake, don't answer, you are just an
absolute jerk of grand proportions and I can't imagine why anyone would
respond to you).



dave

George wrote:

> Dodging hornets, I'll say that blade exposure can be kept to such a minimum
> that it just plain (plane) makes no difference at all. The length of the
> plane sole is important relative to how straight the board is initially, and
> how impatient the operator, as comparison to a standard allows even a
> short-soled plane to level observed high spots enough to where its sole will
> bridge and average the remaining.
>
> Aren't you the same one who was giving me grief a couple months ago when I
> told you that a jointer could/should be used the same way?
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
>>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
>>the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
>>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
>>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>>
>>A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
>>projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
>>long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
>>grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
>>found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
>>straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
>>long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
>>board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
>>reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
>>plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
>>board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
>>use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
>>the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
>>reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
>>there?
>>
>>Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:26:56 -0700, Richards <[email protected]>
wrote:


> From a practical standpoint, you're absolutely right. Mathmatically, a
>shallow cut with a long soled plane would minimize the blade hanging
>from the bottom of the plane to the point that operator ability would
>determine the quality of the cut; however, from a theoretical
>standpoint, the fact that the blade is the lowest point on a plane would
> seem to show that flatness could never be achieved.

Why not? I guess I'm not a theoretician, and/or theoreticians (sp?)
don't know nuttin' about woodworking. Didn't these fellas insist
bumblebees couldn't fly? :-)

Even if the plane sole is lifted ever so slightly by the part of the
blade protruding under it, -waitaminute, now I see what you mean,
there would be a very (very) slightly wavy cut depending on the skill
of the plane handler.

How about Japanese planes, in which the sole has a "step down" in it
which exactly duplicates the way a jointer works? That is, the blade
protrudes down relative to the front of the sole, but just barely
behind the blade, the sole comes down to be at the exact same level as
the blade.

James
[email protected]
http://[email protected]

In news:[email protected],
Scott Cramer <[email protected]> typed:
<snip>
>
> Forgive my sarcasm in the initial post. BAD's unwillingness to
> make any effort whatsoever in finding an answer to any question that
> pops into his head, other than asking someone else to take the
> trouble, is like a blackberry seed in a wisdom tooth. Not painful,
> but persisitently annoying.
>
> Scott

Hmmm..... My teeth must be more sensitive than yours.

:)

Just like Cramer is a corruption of the gene pool...

dave

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
snip
> 'Automobile' is actually a corruption of 'Ottomobile.'
>

Good point, Chris. Creating a bevel would be another concern of mine as
a newbie Neander. Maybe I could put some "training wheels" on my plane
(when I actually GET one) to keep it on the straight and narrow.

I think perhaps I should get the darn plane anyway and try my hand at
edge planing a 2 footer that has been run through the jointer and hold
it up to a jointed edge and see what it looks like. As some have said,
the smoother is the wrong tool to be using for that and if that turns
out to be my experience, I'll keep it for other things.

dave


Christopher wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Chris, you understand my dilemma exactly. If I get a smoother (sorry, I
>>had misspoken earlier when I referred to a block plane) as my first
>>quality plane (Veritas $160) I was wondering if I could smooth a power
>>jointed edge to perfection. The edge would already be flat, but the
>>object of further work would be to remove machining marks, as you noted.
>> Somebody understands me! :)
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
> My guess is that if you are very practiced with a handplane you could
> improve the edge slightly. I've been practicing a lot lately and though I'm
> getting better, I doubt I would actually improve the results provided by a
> power jointer. It would probably be a bit smoother, but I'm not sure I
> could maintain square without some kind of shooting board. I actually
> disagree with Charlie Self below where he says a jointer plane would be
> better than a smooth plane here. Being a newbie, I'll probably get eaten
> alive for doing so but that's OK. I think that taking a shaving of even
> thickness, down the entire length of the board, will maintain the same level
> of flatness produced by the jointer. It's introducing an unwanted bevel I
> would worry about rather than making the piece concave or convex.
>
> -Chris
>
>

Technically speaking? Within thousandths of an inch. For years and
even int he 70's, I understand that the remington Arms factory used
old barrel makers to straighten out bent barrels by eye because it was
MORE accuare than too use the mechanical equipment available. Haven't
kept up with the firearms methods lately but I would not be surprised
if they were still using the older trained men to do that work. It is
absolutlely incredible how sensitive the human body is; you can easily
feel a hair that is 1 thousandths of a inch thick. You can see that
closely also.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:23:18 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:26:56 -0700, Richards <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>> From a practical standpoint, you're absolutely right. Mathmatically, a
>>shallow cut with a long soled plane would minimize the blade hanging
>>from the bottom of the plane to the point that operator ability would
>>determine the quality of the cut; however, from a theoretical
>>standpoint, the fact that the blade is the lowest point on a plane would
>> seem to show that flatness could never be achieved.
>
>Why not? I guess I'm not a theoretician, and/or theoreticians (sp?)
>don't know nuttin' about woodworking. Didn't these fellas insist
>bumblebees couldn't fly? :-)
>
>Even if the plane sole is lifted ever so slightly by the part of the
>blade protruding under it, -waitaminute, now I see what you mean,
>there would be a very (very) slightly wavy cut depending on the skill
>of the plane handler.
>
>How about Japanese planes, in which the sole has a "step down" in it
>which exactly duplicates the way a jointer works? That is, the blade
>protrudes down relative to the front of the sole, but just barely
>behind the blade, the sole comes down to be at the exact same level as
>the blade.
>
>James
>[email protected]
>http://[email protected]
>

"Eric Lund" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> It can be shown theoretically, and many know from experience, that all
>hand
>> planes can plane a concave edge. The radius of the curve (assuming it to
>be
>> circular, which it might not be) is proportional to the square of the
>length
>> of the plane divided by the set.
>>
>So a 22" jointer set for a .001 shaving (a very skilled user) would have a
>radius of 484,000 inches!!! That's gotta be pretty close to flat.
He might have meant "equal to", in which case you are right, but he
said "proportional to".


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:38:55 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion. I just ordered the
>Veritas low angle smoother...

Some 12' #3 Ipe, and you're all set.

there are a few guys around here with holes in their SOULS...



Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
snip
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
> souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
> that guys hang underneath of?
snip

>>BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
>>sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.
>
>I know for a fact its at least 60 years old! lol
>
>
>Have a nice week...

I'm not gonna keep this thread going so I will not answer, except to
say we were talking about a lot older than 60 years. AFAIK-

ah heck, let's talk about female carpenters or somethin'..

James
[email protected]
http://[email protected]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:43:02 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>please tell the dougster that my alleged shortcomings do nothing, nada,
>nyet, to negate Cramer's disgusting off-topic personal attacks.
>
>how can he argue with me unless you are going to keep quoting him?
>
>At least my glass is half full.
>
>dave
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>snip
>> um doug? you waging a full scale argument with a half wit? :-}

why hello BAD i was worried you may have plonked me too. i can sleep
better now thank you. :-} skeez

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:39 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
>FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
>missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>
>dave

You cats have never used a jointer plane properly, obviously.

Sure, any plane will hit the high spots first. It will continue to
take down the high spots till they are at the same level as the lowest
low spot, after which you have a clean, straight edge.

Done it lots of times, not dreaming!

If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.

James
[email protected]
http://[email protected]

George,

I'm an agnostic on this issue of which method yields the best joint too!
Just 2 days ago I ripped a hunk of face-glued poplar to 1/16" thick,
soaked it in water and bent the piece 180 degrees to form a U shaped
trough. The Titebond glue held fast in that 1/16" thick piece (there
were 2 glue lines in it), even when wet, so I don't know how much better
I can get glue to stick! :) But I'm always open to suggestions...except
the rude ones from the miscreants. <g>

dave

George wrote:

> If you take the perfect stroke with minimum blade exposure, all's the same.
>
> Maybe someone in the group can help me, but I believe the theory behind it
> is that you have hardened and burnished your jointed faces, and will get a
> better glue joint by "opening" the pores. I think it's crap, and glue off
> the jointer or the TS with a good blade.
>
> You use a plane to do two things, if you're a basic Norm - trim and surface.
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>My question is more related to starting with a totally flat edge. The
>>idea is that some woodworkers like to run a hand plane over a jointed
>>edge for that "edge" (pun intended) in quality of a glue up joint. So
>>what I want to know is if you are going to just cut a smidge from the
>>edge with a smaller plane, do you end up with a worse edge than if you
>>just rely on a well power jointed edge? Is anyone understanding what I
>>getting at? (Cramer, for god's sake, don't answer, you are just an
>>absolute jerk of grand proportions and I can't imagine why anyone would
>>respond to you).
>
>
>

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:21:18 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sure the 'real' woodworkers that frequent the wreck could no doubt
> create an invisible glue line using a dull adz.
>

Adze?? We don't need no newfangled thangers with th'blade awn awl
Crossway.

Woi a REEL woodworker dun uzes a piece of flint chipped with an ol'
hunka Antler, er a stone axe iffin 'e MUST. :-)

Got an uncle who is an amataur traditional flintknapper: Uses only
stone, wood, and antler tools to make flint knives and things.

Impressivly sharp if a bit rough for a smoother.

Mike in Mystic wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> You're thinking of the Veritas low-angle SMOOTHING plane, right? (not the
> block plane as you've referred to in a few other posts in this thread).
> That's a big difference in how you would use the plane. Neither one of
> these is meant to be used to joint board edges, at least not ideally.
>
> The best use for the low-angle smoothing plane, IMO, would be to finish
> smooth the FACES of particularly difficult (i.e. highly figured) pieces.
> Using the smoothing plane on a board edge is fine, if what you want is a
> smooth edge. If you start out with a square, flat edge, you should end up
> with a square, flat and smooth edge. Technique is critical, though.
>
> So, if you were going to edge glue several boards into a panel, there
> wouldn't be much reason to smooth the edges and the power jointer should do
> perefectly well at this operation. If you have a door edge, say, that will
> be visible and you want to give it a final treatment before finishing, then
> a swipe with the smoothing plane might make sense.
>
> I'm no expert mind, you, but that's how I see it.
>
> Mike
>
> --
>
> There are no stupid questions.
> There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>so there is no point to getting a low angle block plane to take a swipe
>>or two across the edge of a power jointed board to get that sucker dead
>>on flat and smooth? I've read articles stating that the author will
>>power joint a board and then run a plane over it to make the edge even
>>better than what came off the jointer. Does that require a long
>>jointing plane. No other plane will suffice?
>>
>>If that IS the case, what use will I get out of a $160 Veritas plane?
>>
>>thanks.
>>
>>DAVE
>>
>>Hitch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
>>>>plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that
>>>>as the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
>>>>operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
>>>>table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>>>>
>>>>A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
>>>>projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
>>>>long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
>>>>grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
>>>>found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened"
>>>>the straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got.
>>>>How long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say
>>>>a 2' board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to
>>>>have a reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly
>>>>as you plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an
>>>>essentially flat board to start with, and know that it is flat? In
>>>>other words, when I use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have
>>>>to check it. Can I do the same thing with a plane, or do you have to
>>>>stop, eyeball it with a reference straight-edge, and then touch it up
>>>>an little here, a little there?
>>>>
>>>>Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>>>>
>>>>dave
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read the sources listed below, but short of that:
>>>
>>>- jointer planes run 22" to 24" long, generally;
>>>
>>>- you can make nice, flat surfaces for joining with them and lots of
>>>practice;
>>>
>>>- you can use the edge of the plane as your straightedge while planing;
>>>
>>>- there are some tricks to creating joinable board edges (e.g., jointing
>>>both boards at once to remove one variable in the process).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Paddy me boyo,

Me thinks that SWIATAABOC wouldn't have even said hello to you if you were,
in your own words, "a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, egotistical,
selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard".

Besides ... your parent's marital status was out of your control. :o

> Could I have been wrong all along?

> Naaaaaah!


Don't see the need for you to appologize ... you've given the wreck
everything BUT heartburn.

I'll say it - Thank You O'Deen -

Long live the King of Bug Spit (and all that).

*****

And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
oxidizer, nozzle and a match?

My WARMEST regards,

Rick

AKA The Sawdust Factory

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> so there is no point to getting a low angle block plane to take a swipe
> or two across the edge of a power jointed board to get that sucker dead
> on flat and smooth? I've read articles stating that the author will
> power joint a board and then run a plane over it to make the edge even
> better than what came off the jointer. Does that require a long
> jointing plane. No other plane will suffice?
>
> If that IS the case, what use will I get out of a $160 Veritas plane?
>
> thanks.
>
> DAVE
>

I think I read about what you mention here in The Handplane Book. I don't
have a jointer, so can't speak from experience, but I can tell you that the
low angle block plane is not the tool you want for this task. You would use
a smooth plane like a number 4 or even a slightly longer plane, set to take
a very fine shaving. As I understand it, low angle planes are mostly for
end grain and maybe grain that has no particular direction. The point is
not to make the work piece straighter than it comes off the jointer though.
The point is to remove any slight ripples left by the rotating cutting head
of the power jointer.

-Chris

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chris, you understand my dilemma exactly. If I get a smoother (sorry, I
> had misspoken earlier when I referred to a block plane) as my first
> quality plane (Veritas $160) I was wondering if I could smooth a power
> jointed edge to perfection. The edge would already be flat, but the
> object of further work would be to remove machining marks, as you noted.
> Somebody understands me! :)
>
> dave
>

My guess is that if you are very practiced with a handplane you could
improve the edge slightly. I've been practicing a lot lately and though I'm
getting better, I doubt I would actually improve the results provided by a
power jointer. It would probably be a bit smoother, but I'm not sure I
could maintain square without some kind of shooting board. I actually
disagree with Charlie Self below where he says a jointer plane would be
better than a smooth plane here. Being a newbie, I'll probably get eaten
alive for doing so but that's OK. I think that taking a shaving of even
thickness, down the entire length of the board, will maintain the same level
of flatness produced by the jointer. It's introducing an unwanted bevel I
would worry about rather than making the piece concave or convex.

-Chris

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
> FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
> missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? <g>
>
> dave

What you're saying is correct but doesn't matter in the end. I think part
of it is that your iron is just barely below the sole of the plane anyway.
If you were taking thick shavings you might have problems but it's not like
your jointer is pivoting on the iron and one end of the sole is not making
contact or anything like that. I worked some Mahogany over the weekend
starting with a #7 then working through my #5 1/4W and the #4. I laid one
piece on top of another and could only tell where the joint was by the
change in grain. It disappeared, and without any clamping force being
applied.

-Chris

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Good point, Chris. Creating a bevel would be another concern of mine as
> a newbie Neander. Maybe I could put some "training wheels" on my plane
> (when I actually GET one) to keep it on the straight and narrow.
>
> I think perhaps I should get the darn plane anyway and try my hand at
> edge planing a 2 footer that has been run through the jointer and hold
> it up to a jointed edge and see what it looks like. As some have said,
> the smoother is the wrong tool to be using for that and if that turns
> out to be my experience, I'll keep it for other things.
>
> dave
>

I think you should get one. I've got a few Veritas planes now and I'm
extremely happy with them.

-Chris

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When the blade takes a light cut, do you think we are talking on the
> order of 2 or 3 thous?
>
> dave
>

You know, I'm not sure. I'll measure a couple shavings and see what I'm
getting this weekend since I'm curious now. I don't really have a good feel
for how thick a few thousands of an inch is. The thickness of magazine
paper would be in the ballpark.

-Chris

Scott Cramer <[email protected]> writes:

> On 12 Nov 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
>

[... How is it possible that a hand plane joints? ]

> You are a certifiable idiot.

Not because of that question.

>
> Why do you think a long plane is called a jointer plane?

Just that a jointer plane is called jointer plane is *not* an
explanation of how it works, and it is by no means obvoius that
jointing with a jointer plane does work.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Well Dave, it would appear that no one here really knows. Longer planes,
since they ride the high points, can not get down into the lows to plane
them. So what you end up doing is knocking of those high spots. It still
takes a bit of skill but it is easier with a longer plane. I'm not much for
explaining things but you probably get the idea.


"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
> plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
> the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
> operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
> table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.
>
> A hand plane on the other hand isn't built that way. It has a
> projecting blade. So unless the sole of the plane is extraordinarily
> long, how can you get a perfectly machined straight board? Just for
> grins, I was using a tiny hand plane to plane the edge of a board and
> found that no matter how hard I tried, the small plane "unflattened" the
> straight edge I started with. The more passes, the worse it got. How
> long of a plane do you need to get a perfectly flat result on say a 2'
> board? a 6' board? Is it MOSTLY technique, or do you have to have a
> reference straight edge and keep checking your work constantly as you
> plane? OR do you just take a few light passes over an essentially flat
> board to start with, and know that it is flat? In other words, when I
> use the jointer, I KNOW it's flat. I don't have to check it. Can I do
> the same thing with a plane, or do you have to stop, eyeball it with a
> reference straight-edge, and then touch it up an little here, a little
> there?
>
> Lay it on me, WW gods! :)
>
> dave
>