Newbie question: How to make finger joint cut

Scott Kuhn wrote:
>>if you are trying to do what I think you are trying to do, it's pretty
>>different from what I'd call a finger joint. here's what I'd call a
>>finger joint:
>>http://www.azwoodman.com/joints/finger-joint2.jpg
>>
>>is that what you are after?
>
> No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
> simpler...

I'm not far from a newbie (only about 6 months woodworking experience)
but as far as I know, that joint is called a half-lap joint.

I've gotta cut about 40 of them soon (in 2x2 for making a frame) so I'll
be trying to find a repeatable method too. In fact, I'm probably just
going to cut them all by hand as:

a)I'm a bit shaky with a router (it is a very cheap router)

b)it's only for a frame underneath an MDF constructions.

Cheers,


Andy

Scott Kuhn wrote:
>>I've gotta cut about 40 of them soon (in 2x2 for making a frame) so I'll
>>be trying to find a repeatable method too. In fact, I'm probably just
>>going to cut them all by hand as:
>>
>>a)I'm a bit shaky with a router (it is a very cheap router)
>>
>>b)it's only for a frame underneath an MDF constructions.
>
> I hope you'll let us know how it goes. I'd personally be happy to do
> them by hand, it's quiet, safe, and satisfying, but I gotta admit, if
> I can do them _better_ with a router....

I'm going up to my brother's on the 31st of the month. Over that
weekend I'll be cutting all those joints.

My current thoughts lie in using a Bench Saw I already own. It's a
weak-ass, small version of a table saw... but for 2x2 it should be fine.

Of course, because it's such a cheap tool it doesn't come with a mitre
sled, so I'll be using a T shaped construction as a mitre sled (using
the top of the T to slide along the left hand side of the table).

And... as the height isn't adjustable, I'll be placing all the bits to
be cut on top of some 18mm MDF (to raise the height so I can only cut
through half of the stock).

Anyway, I will post back when I'm done....

Cheers,


Andy

J. Clarke wrote:
>>My current thoughts lie in using a Bench Saw I already own. It's a
>>weak-ass, small version of a table saw... but for 2x2 it should be fine.
>>
>>Of course, because it's such a cheap tool it doesn't come with a mitre
>>sled, so I'll be using a T shaped construction as a mitre sled (using
>>the top of the T to slide along the left hand side of the table).
>
> Read the "FWIW Kickback" thread currently active on this newsgroup. Lots of
> discussion there about how to do this safely.

Yeah, I'd read that...

Planning on keeping the guard and splitter in place!! ;-)

I'm also going to be clamping a bit of temporary fence in place (but
having it end before the blade starts) for spacing, but ensuring the rip
fence is away from the piece when cutting.

>>And... as the height isn't adjustable, I'll be placing all the bits to
>>be cut on top of some 18mm MDF (to raise the height so I can only cut
>>through half of the stock).
>
> Whoa, STOP. I can't imagine any saw with a circular blade being quite
> _that_ bad. Even the cheapest hand-held circular saws have a depth-of-cut
> adjustment. DON'T use the saw you have until you've found that adjustment
> or made _sure_ that it was never there

I completely understand your advice. There is definitely no height
adjustment, never was...

I've had a good look round. There is one handle for angle adjustment,
and no other missing items or stubs of missing items or holes where
missing items may have been.

Trust me, I take shop safety very seriously. I always use goggles no
matter what I'm doing, never wear jewellery (even my wedding ring), no
loose clothing.

I know I work with incredibly cheap tools, so I have to ensure my safety
practices are more than above the minimum. In fact, I'm getting a face
shield soon.....

> I'm not trying to rank on you

Don't worry about that, I'm more than happy to receive all advice.
Advice like this doesn't wind me up, it just makes me double think what
I'm doing - which can't ever be a bad thing...

> I think I speak for all of us when I say
> that we'd rather have you come back on Monday and report that you found out
> that the saw was busted than have you not come back at all because you are
> in the hospital after the saw came apart on you in the middle of a cut.

Yeah, definitely not busted... just cheap...

And yes, I'll be checking the nut that holds the blade in place before I
start work ;-)


Cheers,


Andy

J. Clarke wrote:
>>I completely understand your advice. There is definitely no height
>>adjustment, never was...
>>
>>I've had a good look round. There is one handle for angle adjustment,
>>and no other missing items or stubs of missing items or holes where
>>missing items may have been.
>
>
> That is truly bizarre. I'm curious--what's the brand and model on this
> thing?

That's a very good question. Just been out to the shed^H^H^H^Hworkshop
and it's got lots of wood in front of it (been making a fence and all
the offcuts/unused stock are just thrown back in the, uh, shed at the
moment).

Over the next couple of days I'll be finishing off another bit of
fencing so I'll be able to get to it.

It cost about 30 pounds from B&Q (UK) so I guess it must be Performance
Power.

It really is a "Bench Saw" as I stated rather than a "Table Saw". To be
honest, I don't have the budget for anything much bigger although I am
now considering getting a approx 100 pound table saw such as:

http://www.axminster.co.uk/default.asp?part=CCTS10

or

http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=19519&ts=41362

Any opinion on these saws would be appreciated; unless the opinion is
"waste of money, you need to spend 500 pounds at least" - remember what
I'm currently using guys!!! I'm sure the Perform (axminster link above)
table saw sounds a billion times better...

Cheers,


Andy

>>It cost about 30 pounds from B&Q (UK) so I guess it must be Performance
>>Power.
>
> Sorry, I didn't pick up on the UK. Nothing that happens in the UK would
> surprise me--it's always been a mystery to me how any country that can
> produce such mechanical marvels as the E-Jaguar and the Supermarine
> Spitfire can also produce such horrors as the saw without a cutting depth
> adjustment that you describe.

LOL!!!

>>It really is a "Bench Saw" as I stated rather than a "Table Saw".
>
> In the US a "Bench Saw" is just a saw small enough to be placed on a
> workbench for use and then put back on the floor or shelf when bench space
> is needed.

Yeah, it's odd - I've just ordered the one I mentioned from Axminster
and that's considered a bench saw (although it looks a world away from
what I'm used to).

I'll take a photo of my old one before I bin it/give it away...

>>Any opinion on these saws would be appreciated; unless the opinion is
>>"waste of money, you need to spend 500 pounds at least" - remember what
>>I'm currently using guys!!! I'm sure the Perform (axminster link above)
>>table saw sounds a billion times better...
>
> Sorry, no real opinion on those, other than that if it has a cutting depth
> adjustment it's got to be an improvement over what you have.

Yep, has a depth adjustment. The best bit is that it has a mitre slide
:-) And a maximum cutting depth of 80odd millimiters as opposed to a
fixed cutting depth of 43mm...

Getting excited.....

Cheers,


Andy

On 12 Jul 2004 20:55:09 -0700, [email protected] (Scott Kuhn)
wrote:

>Charles, Thanks for the info.
>
>I may not have explained what I'm trying to do clearly enough.

there's that.

if you are trying to do what I think you are trying to do, it's pretty
different from what I'd call a finger joint. here's what I'd call a
finger joint:
http://www.azwoodman.com/joints/finger-joint2.jpg

is that what you are after? if it is, there are a number of ways to go
about it:
http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/workshop/fingerjoint.html
http://www.growinglifestyle.com/article/s0/a166236.html
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/features/fea.asp?id=1109
http://www.woodrat.com/
http://www.incra.biz/index.html
http://www.leestyron.com/lynnjig.php















>In my
>case, I want to remove the rectangle all the way thru the whole
>thickness of the board. Is it still a rabbet in this case?

no







>
>When I'm done, the whole piece will still be 1/2" thick but shaped
>like shown in the diagram below (looking at the board from the front)


ascii art rarely communicates well. if you have a scanner or a digital
camera or a drawing program on your computer either capture the images
from the book or draw us a diagram and scan it or whatever and post it
to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking.






>
>Before:
>------------------
>- -
>- -
>- -
>- -
>------------------
>
>After:
>------------
>- -
>- -
>- -------
>- -
>------------------
>
>(In this diagram, the rectangle that I've cut away is the upper right
>corner.)
>
>I wish it were that easy to get nice square angles with wood. ;)
>
>In case you wonder what I'm doing, I'm trying to build a box. It is
>the first project in a book by Aime Ontairo Fraser called "Getting
>Started in Woodworking". The joints for the box are finger joints, as
>she calls them, which are then strengthened by inserting a dowel pin
>later in the process. The adjacent board would have the rectangle
>removed on the bottom half of the board so they will fit together.

that sounds more like a half lap joint. it hardly seems like it would
add much to the strength of the box. I suspect that I'm still not
understanding what it is that you are trying to do.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:49:22 GMT, patriarch
<<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote:


snip good advice...


>The other warning is that, if you set your tool needs based on what some of
>the woodworking magazines are showing off this month, then you are possibly
>going to do serious damage to your bank account. Not everyone needs a
>Timesaver or a Multi-router... DAMHIKT.
>
>Patriarch


BBBBUTTTT.....

Norm has one. I gotta have one too....

On 13 Jul 2004 20:56:48 -0700, [email protected] (Scott Kuhn)
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in message
>> if you are trying to do what I think you are trying to do, it's pretty
>> different from what I'd call a finger joint. here's what I'd call a
>> finger joint:
>> http://www.azwoodman.com/joints/finger-joint2.jpg
>>
>> is that what you are after?
>
>No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
>simpler...
>
>
>
>> ascii art rarely communicates well. if you have a scanner or a digital
>> camera or a drawing program on your computer either capture the images
>> from the book or draw us a diagram and scan it or whatever and post it
>> to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking.
>
>I took a few pics and posted them here:
>http://home.comcast.net/~scott_d_kuhn/index.html
>
>So now that it's clear what joint I'm trying to make, how would you
>make it accurately and repeatably? I stopped in my local Woodworking
>store and asked a guy there, and he said he'd do it on a jigsaw or
>maybe a bandsaw.
>
>
>Thx to the previous posters for the resources and info. The book by
>Rogowski mentioned by Patriarch looks great and is now in my
>Amazon.com shopping cart.
>
>--Scott




Scott-

what tools do you have?

>[email protected] wrote in message >

>> Scott-
>>
>> what tools do you have?






On 14 Jul 2004 12:50:16 -0700, [email protected] (Scott Kuhn)
wrote:
>
>Right now, only hand tools save for a 12" Makita Compound Miter Saw.
>
>Hand Tools:
> * Dozuki saw
> * Full set of chisels
> * Block Plane
> * Marking knives, try square, etc.


given that, I'd say use the dozuki and the chisels <G>

since you are doing this for practise, get some extra wood and try it
a few different ways. for instance, you can use the miter saw to do
the crosscut part. it's not the best possible way to do it, and you
will likely have to finish off the cut with a chisel, but you will
learn something and gain some skill with your saw in the process.





>
>I'm planning to buy power tools as I need them, probably starting with
>a Tormek sharpening system as I'm tired of using sandpaper to sharpen
>my chisels. I'm trying to figure out what to buy first, TS or router &
>router table.

get the table saw first. use it to build the router table. keep the
router table simple and figure on replacing it within a year as you
figure out what features you actually need. put the money you save
into a better quality router.






> Since the TS tends to scare the sawdust out of me, I'm
>leaning towards the router.

don't make the mistake of thinking that the router can't or won't bite
you. router injuries are nasty.....





> Having said that, Woodcraft just started
>carrying a General International Tablesaw with a left-tilting blade
>which looks _sweet_.

it doesn't seem to be on their website yet.

shop around a bit- and if you want to read a bit more, choosing a
tablesaw is a subject that regularly gets beaten to death here:
http://tinyurl.com/4p7hb

I recommend that you buy an older american made table saw.



>
>Cheers,
>Scott

On 13 Jul 2004 20:56:48 -0700, [email protected] (Scott Kuhn)
wrote:

>No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
>simpler...
>
>
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~scott_d_kuhn/index.html
>
>So now that it's clear what joint I'm trying to make, how would you
>make it accurately and repeatably? I stopped in my local Woodworking
>store and asked a guy there, and he said he'd do it on a jigsaw or
>maybe a bandsaw.

Hmmmm . . .

I don't see a lot of glue surface there.

"Glue surface" is long-grain. The only "long grain to long grain"
contact in that joint is where the two horizontals meet.

That's a weak joint.

There's a reason why we're still cutting dovetails, finger joints, and
mortises and tenons--LOTS of glue surface.

If you have hand tools, you want dovetails for that application.

If you've a table saw, use a dado to cut finger joints.

If you've a router, either finger joints OR dovetails.

If the joinery won't show, I've made similar joints with internal glue
blocks screwed into both sides of the joint--fast and easy, though none
too attractive.

I would get the TS first....


"Scott Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote in message > Scott-
> >
> > what tools do you have?
>
> Right now, only hand tools save for a 12" Makita Compound Miter Saw.
>
> Hand Tools:
> * Dozuki saw
> * Full set of chisels
> * Block Plane
> * Marking knives, try square, etc.
>
> I'm planning to buy power tools as I need them, probably starting with
> a Tormek sharpening system as I'm tired of using sandpaper to sharpen
> my chisels. I'm trying to figure out what to buy first, TS or router &
> router table. Since the TS tends to scare the sawdust out of me, I'm
> leaning towards the router. Having said that, Woodcraft just started
> carrying a General International Tablesaw with a left-tilting blade
> which looks _sweet_.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott

On 12 Jul 2004 12:40:41 -0700, Scott Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have almost no experience with woodworking and am wondering which
> tool would be best to make the following cut. (I can make it fairly
> well w/ hand tools, but curious what the best approach would be with
> power tool).
>
> I have a piece of poplar 1/2" thick, 9" long, 4.5" wide. I want to cut
> a rectangle out of the corner of the board to make a finger. I'd like
> to remove 1/2" along the 9" edge and 2.25" along the 4.5" edge. I need
> to be able to make it close to perfectly square, and to do this
> repeatably on multiple boards.
>
> Visually, here is what I want to do (not to scale):
>
> Before:
> xxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> After:
> xxxxxxx
> xxxxxxx
> xxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I'm guessing I could do this on a table saw, for this case, since I
> can raise the blade 1/2" above the table and use a dado head blade.
> However, what about the more general case, if the smaller dimension of
> the rectangle that I want to remove was larger than the max height of
> a tablesaw blade?
>

That's called a rabbet. Same root as "rebate" . . NOT the animal (which
isn't a rodent, despite having similar teeth, but that's another
discussion). Some older "Rabbet planes" are labeled "Rebate planes"

If your rabbet is deeper than 3/4", you should think about WHY you need
to rabbet that deep. There's probably a better way to accomplish what
you want in those cases.

Tools? Almost anything. Mark the width and depth with your marking
guage. Cut with the bow saw, fitted with the appropriate blade for the
task at hand. I use a mirror so I can stand in a comforatable position
and still see what I'm doing.

My first attempt at tenons (imagine four rabbets) used exactly that
technique, and it was plenty "square". Practice on scrap. Poplar is
just about the easiest hardwood to practice on.

I practiced on red oak before I did my actual pieces. Took about three
practice runs before I "got it."

Good luck


Charles

You'd have to work damn hard at it with a Tormek. I doubt it's even
possible.

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Kuhn wrote:
>
> FWIW, you're unlikely to ever burn a tool (spoil its temper)
> during hand sharpening - and I'd almost /guarantee/ that you will
> with a powered grinder. DAMHIKT

[email protected] (Scott Kuhn) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Charles, Thanks for the info.
>
> I may not have explained what I'm trying to do clearly enough. In my
> case, I want to remove the rectangle all the way thru the whole
> thickness of the board. Is it still a rabbet in this case?
>
<snippage>

I'm guessing that the limitations of ASCI art, and relative unfamiliarity
with terminology, are going to be a problem which continues for a little
while.

You have one pretty good book - let me suggest another: Taunton's
"Complete Illustrated Guide to Joinery", by Gary Rogowski, published
withing the last 18 months or so. Well written, tons of process photos,
and almost every conceivable means of safely producing common and not-so-
common woodworking joints.

It will cost you about 20% of the price of the router you're likely to be
shopping for next, by the way. For that, see www.patwarner.com for some of
the best information you could want.

Have fun with this. There are friends here.

Patriarch

[email protected] (Scott Kuhn) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> [email protected] wrote in message
>> if you are trying to do what I think you are trying to do, it's pretty
>> different from what I'd call a finger joint. here's what I'd call a
>> finger joint:
>> http://www.azwoodman.com/joints/finger-joint2.jpg
>>
>> is that what you are after?
>
> No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
> simpler...
>
>
>
>> ascii art rarely communicates well. if you have a scanner or a digital
>> camera or a drawing program on your computer either capture the images
>> from the book or draw us a diagram and scan it or whatever and post it
>> to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking.
>
> I took a few pics and posted them here:
> http://home.comcast.net/~scott_d_kuhn/index.html
>
> So now that it's clear what joint I'm trying to make, how would you
> make it accurately and repeatably? I stopped in my local Woodworking
> store and asked a guy there, and he said he'd do it on a jigsaw or
> maybe a bandsaw.
>
>
> Thx to the previous posters for the resources and info. The book by
> Rogowski mentioned by Patriarch looks great and is now in my
> Amazon.com shopping cart.
>
> --Scott


If the pictures are the ones that showed up earlier this evening on abpw,
then mostly the tools you need to cut this simple joint are readily
available. A good little saw, on which you can spend anywhere from $10 up
to more than $100, a square for marking the cut lines, and either a sharp
pencil, or a razor-type knife.

Since you're starting out, pick up the hobby saw marketed under the name
ZONA. It has replaceable blades, cuts with a very thin kerf, and is the
maybe $10 model mentioned in the previous paragraph. And, lest you think
that it has no class at all, it is the handcut dovetail saw of choice of
one of the graduates of the College of the Redwoods woodworking types that
regularly hangs out with our woodworking club. Or a Japanese style pull
saw, or similar.

Maybe a chisel to clean up the cuts. And a block plane to trim the joints
to close fit after glueup. Or use sandpaper wrapped around a block of
wood.

Now, the question of repeatability comes up. How much repeatability are
you after? Do you want to cut 4 of these joints? Or 400? Or 4000? If
the answer is 4, then use the hand tools, and practice, and work with care.
If you want to do 400, then a jig or fixture on the table saw or router
table will help you cut them repeatably, quickly, and fairly safely. If
you need 4000, then find Morris Dovey, and have him program his massive CNC
robotic cutters, and sub out the job. ;-)

You see, woodworking is a bit like economics. There are a few questions,
many more answers, and no one can really prove any of them wrong. But
things DO tend to get more complicated than we ever intended, when once we
started.

Enjoy the learning experiences. That's where the value comes, in my
limited experiences. That, and making people smile.

Patriarch

"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 13 Jul 2004 20:56:48 -0700, [email protected] (Scott Kuhn)
> wrote:
>
>>No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
>>simpler...
>>
>>
>>
>>http://home.comcast.net/~scott_d_kuhn/index.html
>>
>>So now that it's clear what joint I'm trying to make, how would you
>>make it accurately and repeatably? I stopped in my local Woodworking
>>store and asked a guy there, and he said he'd do it on a jigsaw or
>>maybe a bandsaw.
>
> Hmmmm . . .
>
> I don't see a lot of glue surface there.
>
> "Glue surface" is long-grain. The only "long grain to long grain"
> contact in that joint is where the two horizontals meet.
>
> That's a weak joint.
>
> There's a reason why we're still cutting dovetails, finger joints, and
> mortises and tenons--LOTS of glue surface.
>
> If you have hand tools, you want dovetails for that application.
>
> If you've a table saw, use a dado to cut finger joints.
>
> If you've a router, either finger joints OR dovetails.
>
> If the joinery won't show, I've made similar joints with internal glue
> blocks screwed into both sides of the joint--fast and easy, though none
> too attractive.
>
>
>

I think that this is a smallish decorative box, primarily made for
practice, in a beginning course of woodworking. Based on the cited author,
my strong suspicion is that dovetails are on the agenda, a couple of
chapters later.

BTW, if you were to pin these joints vertically, say with a small dowel, or
brass rod, they would probably hold up better, in this limited application.

Patriarch

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
>>[email protected] wrote in message >
>
>>> Scott-
>>>
>>> what tools do you have?
>
<snip>

Scott,

Bridger has offered good advice, in all respects.

I add only this: Post a digital picture when you get the first box done.
Then do one with contrasting woods, just for showing off.

And feel free to come back here for help, whenever.

Patriarch

[email protected] (Scott Kuhn) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> Rather than the Tormek, consider getting a couple of 8" diamond
>> plates ranging from xtra course to extra fine and a black Arkansas or
>> a polishing waterstone. Even if you get the Tormek later you won't
>> regret having them. I can generally get from "beat up" to "surgically
>> sharp" faster on those than I can using a grinder. Several times in
>> my life I considered a powered sharpener and asked myself why, and
>> the answer invariable was "fast stock removal on a really beat up
>> tool" or "fast stock removal to change the cutting angle", and every
>> time I added a coarser stone to my collection until finally I had one
>> course enough.
>
> Interesting advice, I will consider it. The Tormek is a lot of
> do-re-mi - but my attraction to it stems from my inexperience. Reading
> the reviews of the thing I became convinced that it is simpler to use
> than stones, because instead of having to move the tool across the
> stone at a constant angle, you just have to clamp the tool into the
> jig at the correct angle and turn the machine on. Seems to take some
> of the required skill out of the equation, no? Not that those skills
> wouldn't be nice to develop over time...
>
> --Scott

The Adult Education center where I take classes has a Tormek system. I
used it to redo some seriously beat up, but very vintage Stanley Sweetheart
plane blades. Were I doing this sort of thing in a shop setting, with
several people, and lots of hand tool edge work going on, then MAYBE a
Tormek would make sense. As a hobbyist, I look at the Tormek, and see, for
the same money, two or three more handplanes, from LV, or LN, or an old
Stanley scrounger/dealer.

It's the old trade off: Buy a tool, or learn the skills. It takes perhaps
20 minutes to learn how to properly sharpen a chisel, another 15 minutes on
top of that for a handplane blade. Practice on a set of 4 chisels, with a
knowledgeable tutor, and you have the skill for life.

If you're in the SF Bay Area, (noted from another post), your local
Woodcraft teaches the class on Saturday morning, or in the evening. Or
check with the local community college or adult education for one.

The other warning is that, if you set your tool needs based on what some of
the woodworking magazines are showing off this month, then you are possibly
going to do serious damage to your bank account. Not everyone needs a
Timesaver or a Multi-router... DAMHIKT.

Patriarch

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:49:22 GMT, patriarch
> <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> snip good advice...
>
>
>>The other warning is that, if you set your tool needs based on what
>>some of the woodworking magazines are showing off this month, then you
>>are possibly going to do serious damage to your bank account. Not
>>everyone needs a Timesaver or a Multi-router... DAMHIKT.
>>
>>Patriarch
>
>
> BBBBUTTTT.....
>
> Norm has one. I gotta have one too....
>

I'll give you the same answer I gave my eldest son, when he asked when he
could buy a motorcycle: "When it's OK with your wife...."

Patriarch

Charles, Thanks for the info.

I may not have explained what I'm trying to do clearly enough. In my
case, I want to remove the rectangle all the way thru the whole
thickness of the board. Is it still a rabbet in this case?

When I'm done, the whole piece will still be 1/2" thick but shaped
like shown in the diagram below (looking at the board from the front)

Before:
------------------
- -
- -
- -
- -
------------------

After:
------------
- -
- -
- -------
- -
------------------

(In this diagram, the rectangle that I've cut away is the upper right
corner.)

I wish it were that easy to get nice square angles with wood. ;)

In case you wonder what I'm doing, I'm trying to build a box. It is
the first project in a book by Aime Ontairo Fraser called "Getting
Started in Woodworking". The joints for the box are finger joints, as
she calls them, which are then strengthened by inserting a dowel pin
later in the process. The adjacent board would have the rectangle
removed on the bottom half of the board so they will fit together.

--Scott




"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 12 Jul 2004 12:40:41 -0700, Scott Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I have almost no experience with woodworking and am wondering which
> > tool would be best to make the following cut. (I can make it fairly
> > well w/ hand tools, but curious what the best approach would be with
> > power tool).
> >
> > I have a piece of poplar 1/2" thick, 9" long, 4.5" wide. I want to cut
> > a rectangle out of the corner of the board to make a finger. I'd like
> > to remove 1/2" along the 9" edge and 2.25" along the 4.5" edge. I need
> > to be able to make it close to perfectly square, and to do this
> > repeatably on multiple boards.
> >
> > Visually, here is what I want to do (not to scale):
> >
> > Before:
> > xxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > After:
> > xxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > I'm guessing I could do this on a table saw, for this case, since I
> > can raise the blade 1/2" above the table and use a dado head blade.
> > However, what about the more general case, if the smaller dimension of
> > the rectangle that I want to remove was larger than the max height of
> > a tablesaw blade?
> >
>
> That's called a rabbet. Same root as "rebate" . . NOT the animal (which
> isn't a rodent, despite having similar teeth, but that's another
> discussion). Some older "Rabbet planes" are labeled "Rebate planes"
>
> If your rabbet is deeper than 3/4", you should think about WHY you need
> to rabbet that deep. There's probably a better way to accomplish what
> you want in those cases.
>
> Tools? Almost anything. Mark the width and depth with your marking
> guage. Cut with the bow saw, fitted with the appropriate blade for the
> task at hand. I use a mirror so I can stand in a comforatable position
> and still see what I'm doing.
>
> My first attempt at tenons (imagine four rabbets) used exactly that
> technique, and it was plenty "square". Practice on scrap. Poplar is
> just about the easiest hardwood to practice on.
>
> I practiced on red oak before I did my actual pieces. Took about three
> practice runs before I "got it."
>
> Good luck
>
>
> Charles

[email protected] wrote in message
> if you are trying to do what I think you are trying to do, it's pretty
> different from what I'd call a finger joint. here's what I'd call a
> finger joint:
> http://www.azwoodman.com/joints/finger-joint2.jpg
>
> is that what you are after?

No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
simpler...



> ascii art rarely communicates well. if you have a scanner or a digital
> camera or a drawing program on your computer either capture the images
> from the book or draw us a diagram and scan it or whatever and post it
> to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking.

I took a few pics and posted them here:
http://home.comcast.net/~scott_d_kuhn/index.html

So now that it's clear what joint I'm trying to make, how would you
make it accurately and repeatably? I stopped in my local Woodworking
store and asked a guy there, and he said he'd do it on a jigsaw or
maybe a bandsaw.


Thx to the previous posters for the resources and info. The book by
Rogowski mentioned by Patriarch looks great and is now in my
Amazon.com shopping cart.

--Scott

patriarch <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote in message


>
> Since you're starting out, pick up the hobby saw marketed under the name
> ZONA. It has replaceable blades, cuts with a very thin kerf, and is the
> maybe $10 model mentioned in the previous paragraph. And, lest you think
> that it has no class at all, it is the handcut dovetail saw of choice of
> one of the graduates of the College of the Redwoods woodworking types that
> regularly hangs out with our woodworking club. Or a Japanese style pull
> saw, or similar.
>
> Maybe a chisel to clean up the cuts. And a block plane to trim the joints
> to close fit after glueup. Or use sandpaper wrapped around a block of
> wood.

Yeah, that sounds good. In fact, the way I've made a couple of these
joints so far is as she recommends in the book, which is using a
Japanese Dozuki saw and then a chisel to clean it up. That's the part
I find hard - getting the notch nice and square with the chisel. But I
think you're right, with practice it'll get better.



>
> Now, the question of repeatability comes up. How much repeatability are
> you after? Do you want to cut 4 of these joints? Or 400? Or 4000? If
> the answer is 4, then use the hand tools, and practice, and work with care.
> If you want to do 400, then a jig or fixture on the table saw or router
> table will help you cut them repeatably, quickly, and fairly safely. If
> you need 4000, then find Morris Dovey, and have him program his massive CNC
> robotic cutters, and sub out the job. ;-)

I only need 8 of them, so I guess doing it by hand is the best way for
now. I was just wondering mostly, is it possible to make this
particular cut on a router or TS and you've answered that in the
affirmative.


>
> You see, woodworking is a bit like economics. There are a few questions,
> many more answers, and no one can really prove any of them wrong. But
> things DO tend to get more complicated than we ever intended, when once we
> started.
>
> Enjoy the learning experiences. That's where the value comes, in my
> limited experiences. That, and making people smile.
>
> Patriarch


Thanks very much for the input!

--Scott

Andy Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote in message >

> I'm not far from a newbie (only about 6 months woodworking experience)
> but as far as I know, that joint is called a half-lap joint.

I was looking on amazon.com at the "Complete Illustrated Guide to
Joinery" book mentioned in this thread, and using the "search inside
this book" feature you can see thumbnail photos of many joints. Based
on that, I'd say the joint we're talking about here is called a
"halved joint". A half-lap joint is similar, but half the thickness is
removed from each board, whereas in the halved joint each board
retains it's full thickness. Have a look at those pictures and see if
you agree:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1561584010/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7333346-2270262#reader-link

>
> I've gotta cut about 40 of them soon (in 2x2 for making a frame) so I'll
> be trying to find a repeatable method too. In fact, I'm probably just
> going to cut them all by hand as:
>
> a)I'm a bit shaky with a router (it is a very cheap router)
>
> b)it's only for a frame underneath an MDF constructions.
>

I hope you'll let us know how it goes. I'd personally be happy to do
them by hand, it's quiet, safe, and satisfying, but I gotta admit, if
I can do them _better_ with a router....

Regards,
Scott

[email protected] wrote in message > Scott-
>
> what tools do you have?

Right now, only hand tools save for a 12" Makita Compound Miter Saw.

Hand Tools:
* Dozuki saw
* Full set of chisels
* Block Plane
* Marking knives, try square, etc.

I'm planning to buy power tools as I need them, probably starting with
a Tormek sharpening system as I'm tired of using sandpaper to sharpen
my chisels. I'm trying to figure out what to buy first, TS or router &
router table. Since the TS tends to scare the sawdust out of me, I'm
leaning towards the router. Having said that, Woodcraft just started
carrying a General International Tablesaw with a left-tilting blade
which looks _sweet_.

Cheers,
Scott

[email protected] wrote in message >
>
> and it's in... section 7- finger joints. <G>
>
>
Yeah, how about that :)

> it's not a joint that I can see much use for beyond practice with the
> tools type stuff.
> if I'm looking for quick-and-dirty I'll assemble butt joints with
> staples and glue. if I want strong I'll choose a joint for the
> application- but I doubt that that joint would turn out to be the
> method of choice anywhere. If I want attractive I doubt it will be on
> the short list either, but that being an aesthetic matter someone else
> might have a different take.

I agree with you. I would really like to build a similar box but with
dovetail joints or finger joints, but this is good for practice.

Thx fer your input.

--Scott

> Rather than the Tormek, consider getting a couple of 8" diamond plates
> ranging from xtra course to extra fine and a black Arkansas or a polishing
> waterstone. Even if you get the Tormek later you won't regret having them.
> I can generally get from "beat up" to "surgically sharp" faster on those
> than I can using a grinder. Several times in my life I considered a
> powered sharpener and asked myself why, and the answer invariable was "fast
> stock removal on a really beat up tool" or "fast stock removal to change
> the cutting angle", and every time I added a coarser stone to my collection
> until finally I had one course enough.

Interesting advice, I will consider it. The Tormek is a lot of
do-re-mi - but my attraction to it stems from my inexperience. Reading
the reviews of the thing I became convinced that it is simpler to use
than stones, because instead of having to move the tool across the
stone at a constant angle, you just have to clamp the tool into the
jig at the correct angle and turn the machine on. Seems to take some
of the required skill out of the equation, no? Not that those skills
wouldn't be nice to develop over time...

--Scott

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > The problem with questions like this is that there is no "right" answer.
> The "best" way to do it depends on too many factors. If all you've got it
> a Swiss Army Knife and you're a broke student with plenty of time then you
> can do it, very carefully, with a Swiss Army Knife, sharpening it on a
> coffee mug in the cafeteria as needed. On the other hand, if you're the
> CEO of Delta you hand the piece to an engineer and tell him to whip you up
> a machine that takes whatever he has in at one end and produces finished
> parts at the other (OK, I'm exaggerating--he'd probably just pull a radial
> arm saw off the line if he didn't already have one).
>
> Part of the "art" of woodworking is figuring out how to do what you need to
> do with what you have and failing that what's the best thing to do about
> it--the "best thing to do about it" is not necessarily get a tool optimized
> for that one job--there may be one that does it "good enough" and does a
> lot of other stuff that you've been working too hard at with what you have.

I agree...clearly there are many ways to skin this cat. I got a good
chuckle out of your swiss army knife example, especially the part
about sharpening on the coffee mug. :>)

sdk

Scott Kuhn wrote:

> [email protected] wrote in message
>> if you are trying to do what I think you are trying to do, it's pretty
>> different from what I'd call a finger joint. here's what I'd call a
>> finger joint:
>> http://www.azwoodman.com/joints/finger-joint2.jpg
>>
>> is that what you are after?
>
> No, that is what i will eventually be after, but right now it's much
> simpler...
>
>
>
>> ascii art rarely communicates well. if you have a scanner or a digital
>> camera or a drawing program on your computer either capture the images
>> from the book or draw us a diagram and scan it or whatever and post it
>> to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking.
>
> I took a few pics and posted them here:
> http://home.comcast.net/~scott_d_kuhn/index.html
>
> So now that it's clear what joint I'm trying to make, how would you
> make it accurately and repeatably? I stopped in my local Woodworking
> store and asked a guy there, and he said he'd do it on a jigsaw or
> maybe a bandsaw.
>
>
> Thx to the previous posters for the resources and info. The book by
> Rogowski mentioned by Patriarch looks great and is now in my
> Amazon.com shopping cart.

As to how I'd make that specific cut "accurately and repeatably", IMO it's
practically made to order for a radial arm saw. Two passes, one with the
blade vertical to cut from the edge, one horizontal from the end, stack
your pieces and you can do a dozen or so on one pass depending on
thickness.

But if you don't have a radial arm saw then you'd have to go out and get one
to use that approach, so it's probalby not cost effective for you.

The problem with questions like this is that there is no "right" answer.
The "best" way to do it depends on too many factors. If all you've got it
a Swiss Army Knife and you're a broke student with plenty of time then you
can do it, very carefully, with a Swiss Army Knife, sharpening it on a
coffee mug in the cafeteria as needed. On the other hand, if you're the
CEO of Delta you hand the piece to an engineer and tell him to whip you up
a machine that takes whatever he has in at one end and produces finished
parts at the other (OK, I'm exaggerating--he'd probably just pull a radial
arm saw off the line if he didn't already have one).

Part of the "art" of woodworking is figuring out how to do what you need to
do with what you have and failing that what's the best thing to do about
it--the "best thing to do about it" is not necessarily get a tool optimized
for that one job--there may be one that does it "good enough" and does a
lot of other stuff that you've been working too hard at with what you have.

You asked how to handle a cut of that nature that is too deep for the blade
depth on your table saw. Many ways. You could use any of several
varieties of hand saw, a band saw, a jigsaw, a scrollsaw, etc. If the
stock thickness is less than twice the cut depth of the longest bit your
router will handle then you could route it and clean up the corner with a
chisel. If you're desperate enough you could drill multiple holes along
the cut line then smooth it with a chisel.
>
> --Scott

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Scott Kuhn wrote:

> [email protected] wrote in message > Scott-
>>
>> what tools do you have?
>
> Right now, only hand tools save for a 12" Makita Compound Miter Saw.
>
> Hand Tools:
> * Dozuki saw
> * Full set of chisels
> * Block Plane
> * Marking knives, try square, etc.
>
> I'm planning to buy power tools as I need them, probably starting with
> a Tormek sharpening system as I'm tired of using sandpaper to sharpen
> my chisels. I'm trying to figure out what to buy first, TS or router &
> router table. Since the TS tends to scare the sawdust out of me, I'm
> leaning towards the router. Having said that, Woodcraft just started
> carrying a General International Tablesaw with a left-tilting blade
> which looks _sweet_.

For the cut you're doing Dozuki and chisels would be the way to go unless
you want to go for the table saw.

Table saw or radial arm saw would be your first purchase IMO. Table saw is
the ripmaster, radial arm is the crosscut master. Both have their
strengths and weaknesses, either will do most of your straight cuts. Since
you already have a compound miter saw I'd go with the table saw.

Rather than the Tormek, consider getting a couple of 8" diamond plates
ranging from xtra course to extra fine and a black Arkansas or a polishing
waterstone. Even if you get the Tormek later you won't regret having them.
I can generally get from "beat up" to "surgically sharp" faster on those
than I can using a grinder. Several times in my life I considered a
powered sharpener and asked myself why, and the answer invariable was "fast
stock removal on a really beat up tool" or "fast stock removal to change
the cutting angle", and every time I added a coarser stone to my collection
until finally I had one course enough.

> Cheers,
> Scott

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Scott Kuhn wrote:

>> Rather than the Tormek, consider getting a couple of 8" diamond plates
>> ranging from xtra course to extra fine and a black Arkansas or a
>> polishing
>> waterstone. Even if you get the Tormek later you won't regret having
>> them. I can generally get from "beat up" to "surgically sharp" faster on
>> those
>> than I can using a grinder. Several times in my life I considered a
>> powered sharpener and asked myself why, and the answer invariable was
>> "fast stock removal on a really beat up tool" or "fast stock removal to
>> change the cutting angle", and every time I added a coarser stone to my
>> collection until finally I had one course enough.
>
> Interesting advice, I will consider it. The Tormek is a lot of
> do-re-mi - but my attraction to it stems from my inexperience. Reading
> the reviews of the thing I became convinced that it is simpler to use
> than stones, because instead of having to move the tool across the
> stone at a constant angle, you just have to clamp the tool into the
> jig at the correct angle and turn the machine on. Seems to take some
> of the required skill out of the equation, no? Not that those skills
> wouldn't be nice to develop over time...

The Veritas jig,
<http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=33001&category=1,43072,43078&abspage=1&ccurrency=2&SID=>
and many others, work fine. They're really "training wheels" in a
sense--after you get a feel for the correct angle using the jig you'll find
yourself doing without it more and more often.

> --Scott

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

patriarch wrote:

> [email protected] wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:49:22 GMT, patriarch
>> <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip good advice...
>>
>>
>>>The other warning is that, if you set your tool needs based on what
>>>some of the woodworking magazines are showing off this month, then you
>>>are possibly going to do serious damage to your bank account. Not
>>>everyone needs a Timesaver or a Multi-router... DAMHIKT.
>>>
>>>Patriarch
>>
>>
>> BBBBUTTTT.....
>>
>> Norm has one. I gotta have one too....
>>
>
> I'll give you the same answer I gave my eldest son, when he asked when he
> could buy a motorcycle: "When it's OK with your wife...."

That might be a mistake. Now he's going to be concentrating on biker chicks
when the time comes . . . Not that there's anything wrong with biker
chicks as long as they have something else going on in their lives besides
motorcycles.

> Patriarch

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andy Jeffries wrote:

> Scott Kuhn wrote:
>>>I've gotta cut about 40 of them soon (in 2x2 for making a frame) so I'll
>>>be trying to find a repeatable method too. In fact, I'm probably just
>>>going to cut them all by hand as:
>>>
>>>a)I'm a bit shaky with a router (it is a very cheap router)
>>>
>>>b)it's only for a frame underneath an MDF constructions.
>>
>> I hope you'll let us know how it goes. I'd personally be happy to do
>> them by hand, it's quiet, safe, and satisfying, but I gotta admit, if
>> I can do them _better_ with a router....
>
> I'm going up to my brother's on the 31st of the month. Over that
> weekend I'll be cutting all those joints.
>
> My current thoughts lie in using a Bench Saw I already own. It's a
> weak-ass, small version of a table saw... but for 2x2 it should be fine.
>
> Of course, because it's such a cheap tool it doesn't come with a mitre
> sled, so I'll be using a T shaped construction as a mitre sled (using
> the top of the T to slide along the left hand side of the table).

Read the "FWIW Kickback" thread currently active on this newsgroup. Lots of
discussion there about how to do this safely.

> And... as the height isn't adjustable, I'll be placing all the bits to
> be cut on top of some 18mm MDF (to raise the height so I can only cut
> through half of the stock).

Whoa, STOP. I can't imagine any saw with a circular blade being quite
_that_ bad. Even the cheapest hand-held circular saws have a depth-of-cut
adjustment. DON'T use the saw you have until you've found that adjustment
or made _sure_ that it was never there or found out where it used to be--if
it's not there then odds are that some part of the mechanism is either
missing or busted off, and if that's the case then who knows what else may
be missing or busted? And using a busted saw is a very quick way to the
emergency room. If it _is_ there and you didn't know where then there may
be other important things you need to know about that saw before you use
it.

I'm not trying to rank on you but I think I speak for all of us when I say
that we'd rather have you come back on Monday and report that you found out
that the saw was busted than have you not come back at all because you are
in the hospital after the saw came apart on you in the middle of a cut.

> Anyway, I will post back when I'm done....
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Andy

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andy Jeffries wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
<snip>
>> Whoa, STOP. I can't imagine any saw with a circular blade being quite
>> _that_ bad. Even the cheapest hand-held circular saws have a
>> depth-of-cut
>> adjustment. DON'T use the saw you have until you've found that
>> adjustment or made _sure_ that it was never there
>
> I completely understand your advice. There is definitely no height
> adjustment, never was...
>
> I've had a good look round. There is one handle for angle adjustment,
> and no other missing items or stubs of missing items or holes where
> missing items may have been.

That is truly bizarre. I'm curious--what's the brand and model on this
thing?

<snip>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andy Jeffries wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>I completely understand your advice. There is definitely no height
>>>adjustment, never was...
>>>
>>>I've had a good look round. There is one handle for angle adjustment,
>>>and no other missing items or stubs of missing items or holes where
>>>missing items may have been.
>>
>>
>> That is truly bizarre. I'm curious--what's the brand and model on this
>> thing?
>
> That's a very good question. Just been out to the shed^H^H^H^Hworkshop
> and it's got lots of wood in front of it (been making a fence and all
> the offcuts/unused stock are just thrown back in the, uh, shed at the
> moment).
>
> Over the next couple of days I'll be finishing off another bit of
> fencing so I'll be able to get to it.
>
> It cost about 30 pounds from B&Q (UK) so I guess it must be Performance
> Power.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on the UK. Nothing that happens in the UK would
surprise me--it's always been a mystery to me how any country that can
produce such mechanical marvels as the E-Jaguar and the Supermarine
Spitfire can also produce such horrors as the saw without a cutting depth
adjustment that you describe.

> It really is a "Bench Saw" as I stated rather than a "Table Saw".

In the US a "Bench Saw" is just a saw small enough to be placed on a
workbench for use and then put back on the floor or shelf when bench space
is needed. To be
> honest, I don't have the budget for anything much bigger although I am
> now considering getting a approx 100 pound table saw such as:
>
> http://www.axminster.co.uk/default.asp?part=CCTS10
>
> or
>
> http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=19519&ts=41362
>
> Any opinion on these saws would be appreciated; unless the opinion is
> "waste of money, you need to spend 500 pounds at least" - remember what
> I'm currently using guys!!! I'm sure the Perform (axminster link above)
> table saw sounds a billion times better...

Sorry, no real opinion on those, other than that if it has a cutting depth
adjustment it's got to be an improvement over what you have.

> Cheers,
>
>
> Andy

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Scott Kuhn wrote:

> ... it is simpler to use
> than stones, because instead of having to move the tool across the
> stone at a constant angle, you just have to clamp the tool into the
> jig at the correct angle and turn the machine on. Seems to take some
> of the required skill out of the equation, no?

No. There are simple, easy-to-use tool holders for controlling
the angle at which the tool being sharpened contacts the
sharpening surface. I have an inexpensive little jig from Lee
Valley that I use for chisels and plane irons - that does an
absolutely gee-whiz job.

FWIW, you're unlikely to ever burn a tool (spoil its temper)
during hand sharpening - and I'd almost /guarantee/ that you will
with a powered grinder. DAMHIKT

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

>Andy Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote in message >

>> I'm not far from a newbie (only about 6 months woodworking experience)
>> but as far as I know, that joint is called a half-lap joint.




On 14 Jul 2004 12:26:00 -0700, [email protected] (Scott Kuhn)
wrote:
>I was looking on amazon.com at the "Complete Illustrated Guide to
>Joinery" book mentioned in this thread, and using the "search inside
>this book" feature you can see thumbnail photos of many joints. Based
>on that, I'd say the joint we're talking about here is called a
>"halved joint". A half-lap joint is similar, but half the thickness is
>removed from each board, whereas in the halved joint each board
>retains it's full thickness. Have a look at those pictures and see if
>you agree:
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1561584010/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7333346-2270262#reader-link


and it's in... section 7- finger joints. <G>


it's not a joint that I can see much use for beyond practice with the
tools type stuff.
if I'm looking for quick-and-dirty I'll assemble butt joints with
staples and glue. if I want strong I'll choose a joint for the
application- but I doubt that that joint would turn out to be the
method of choice anywhere. If I want attractive I doubt it will be on
the short list either, but that being an aesthetic matter someone else
might have a different take.