Re: Reaction to walnut and new TV-Stand

On 10/27/2012 2:41 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:
>>
>> Like this:
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234
>>
>
> I didn't realize at first there was more than one picture here! It
> looks like it will help give me a "leg up" in my cabinet-making! Thank
> you!

LOL ... check for those left and right arrows on anything I post. ;)

There are indeed a lot of cabinets in that album to look at.

Leon and I built and installed that particular job last year ...

Frameless cabinets have a challenge all their own, and it's a tough
market to compete in because, with the precision and tolerances
required, very few can afford to take their time and build each cabinet
individually, then install them to meet the specs as we do ... they are
usually mass produced, with very high equipment costs, which means many
of those who do them often don't survive the inevitable ups and downs of
the industry.

You gotta be brave, or foolish, or both to undertake some of these
projects ... that, and a large measure of problem solving ability,
confident optimism, and the tools to do the job, are just some of the
things we both have in common that seems to gets r' done. :>)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Bill wrote:

>
> I see your point. I suppose I could use a hard wood like maple for the
> frame base. I wouldn't expect Cherry ply to possess "compression
> strength"; I think it might crumble. Of course, Cheery lumber would
> probably work very well (if I could locate some 4/4). Is this thinking
> correct?
>

Any ply would possess the necessary compression strength. Even pine boards
would.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:41:24 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>> <snip> ... it was not until I ran across an article in the Sep/Oct 1999
>> issue
>>> of "Fine Wood Working" magazine, by Will Neptune, entitled "Sideboard
>>> Strategies", whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking
>>> school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction
>>> method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction -
>>> basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached to
>>> the box, that I found a solution I thought I could live with.
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, the basic principle of this particular casework
>>> construction method is:
>>>
>>> "If a case part joins another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part
>>> meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."
>>
>> I finished reading Will Neptune's article last night. I will make a
>> short list of what I gleaned from it later, but it should definitely
>> improve my game! I'll be watching for other of his publications (I
>> noticed he co-authored a book, "Introduction to Fine Woodworking".
>>
>> He repeated what you quoted at least 3 times: "If a case part joins
>> another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part meets along another's
>> length, use multiple through tenons." : )
>>
>> Okay (don't push..LOL), here are the highlights of what I gleaned:
>
> Also, after reading the article, I realized my expectation of what
>"biscuit joinery" could do for me were probably inflated. In other
>words, Biscuits are not tenons...
>
>I found the Japanese (zero-set) dowel saw at Harbor Freight today, but
>they wouldn't accept their recently-expired coupon. It will yield less
>than $2 savings, but it's the principle of the thing! The saw is
>remarkably flexible--much more-so than the cashier! : )

How do you know? You never met her asking price. <evil grinne>

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

On 11/19/2012 6:52 PM, Bill wrote:
> I will read the whole article before the evening is over. Though, I'm
> not sure that my situation is like the one in the article because I'm
> using plywood. No one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?

Notice that half the links I included deal with a plywood cabinet.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Bill wrote:

> This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a
> base
> with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the
> Cedar-lined
> chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
> wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the vertical height of the side and rear panels.

The larger the height value, the stiffer the box.

Some basic strength of materials.

I (Moment of Inertia) = (b*h^3)/12

For a rectangle

Where b = base; h = height
-----------------------------------------------------
The larger the value of "I", the stiffer the beam will be.

The above is a very basic explanation.

For an in-depth explanation, construct a Strength of Materials
engineering text.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Depends on the vertical height of the side and rear panels.
>
> The larger the height value, the stiffer the box.
>
> Some basic strength of materials.
>
> I (Moment of Inertia) = (b*h^3)/12
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill wrote:


> Are you saying that *sag* is related to a rotational force?
>
> Concerning "sag", it seem like we should be measuring the
> distribution of mass between supports. If F=md is the force in the
> middle (of the horizontal beam) and it is low, then we should
> experience less sagging, right? The "trick" seems to be to make sure
> d is small. h appears to have little to do with it. Not being an
> engineer, I only have a very basic grasp of the concepts.
----------------------------------------------------
The math confirms the following.

A 2by4 supported at each end will be stiffer if the 4" side is
vertical
rather than the 2" side.

The taller a vertical panel is the more "sag resistant" it is.

That's why the face frame is so important for case goods or the
apron for a table.

It is also why 1/4" plywood panels nailed to the studs at the corners
of
a building makes the building far more earthquake proof.

Lew

On 11/20/2012 11:45 AM, Bill wrote:

> With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
> dowel with a sharp chisel?

Flush cut saw

http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page=19731&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=&utm_content=pla&utm_campaign=PLA&gclid=CJTjx42V3rMCFehDMgodSHAA7Q

> At least the way the FWW article started, the emphasis concerned natural
> changes in the wood due to it's environment. I understand we want a
> "strong box" lying on it's side. I'll keep reading! : )

Pretty much ...

> I might need a "floating tenon" if I attached my plywood box to a
> natural wood base frame, huh?

Not necessarily ...


> I like to try to let you know that it's
> not all going over my head! : )

That part did. :)

Example of one of the principles of this particular casework
construction method:

"... if one part meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."

Notice the through tenons in the photograph (trimmed flush):

http://e-woodshop.net/images/MSBDTCase3.JPG

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 11/23/2012 1:44 PM, Bill wrote:
> CW wrote:
Snip


====================================
>>
>>
>> Make it easy on yourself. Get a pocket hole jig.
>
> I can't argue with your logic. Paraphrasing a remark I read recently in
> the introduction of a book on cabinetry and framework: There is an
> extensive range of technique and devotion with which one may complete a
> joint... And that was written long before Kreg was created.
>
>


The Kreg is simply a jig that is marketed to the common woodworker so
that he may recreate a very long accepted practice of using pocket holes.

On 11/27/2012 10:14 PM, Bill wrote:
> In-set cabinet doors would be a nice touch--though it appears the
> tolerances for fitting them are quite small!

Here's a nice little "EZ" method/trick, a la Sam Maloof and his
"Hollywood style", for taking most of the pain out of doing a bunch of
inset doors ... simply round over the door edges.

Doing so makes any imprecision in the gap disappear.

This works particularly well when you use contrasting woods for the face
frame and the inset doors, thusly:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopTexasTansu2005#5815928801557670066

Keep that one in your saddle bags, highly useful. ;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 10/26/2012 8:38 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> Or as fancy as having a base with drawers in it:
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopWalnutCherryHopeChest200602#5679358359330919090
>>
>>
>
> I noticed your base had about a 45 degree (or less) bevel on top. Did
> you chest meet it with the reverse bevel, and is the purpose to help
> give it a "solid feel"? I enjoyed looking at the pictures.
>
>
>
>>
>> Lots of ways to skin that cat, both with plywood and wood. Keep in mind
>> that for most casework of the type in your model, including bases for
>> same, plywood is usually a better choice for wood due to its dimensional
>> stability ... IOW, you don't have to necessarily design your piece with
>> hard to effect joinery that would be necessary to take into account wood
>> movement, either from a lack of tools, or the fact that you're still
>> developing the skills to use them.
>>
>> Not to mention that most of that "solid wood", expensive "fine
>> furniture" casework you see in furniture stores is often plywood with
>> edge banding ... for reasons of dimensional stability, cost and ease of
>> manufacture, but it still looks and performs like "fine furniture".
>>
>> With a TV stand that's both a valid method, and an excellent goal to aim
>> for. ;)
>
> I smiled a little when I asked myself how long it would take me to make
> one of those little drawers in the bottom of your chest! It doesn't
> look at though you cut any corners on your chest! Nice joinery
> throughout! : )

Thanks ... labor of love, for my youngest daughter, as a gift from her
aunt (my SIL wrote a check for the material, I did the hard part ... (we
all do what we do best)). <g>

I don't recall the top of the base being beveled, although it's been a
few years?


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> I see your point. I suppose I could use a hard wood like maple for
>> the frame base. I wouldn't expect Cherry ply to possess "compression
>> strength"; I think it might crumble. Of course, Cheery lumber would
>> probably work very well (if I could locate some 4/4). Is this
>> thinking correct?
>>
>
> Any ply would possess the necessary compression strength. Even pine
> boards would.

... as would MDF, OSB, particle board, and even the right kind of cardboard.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 10/27/2012 1:33 PM, Bill wrote:
> BTW, I noticed some 2" metal braces screwed into the corners of your
> base frame. Would such hardware make sense in plywood, afixed with
> drywall screws, or would that be a waste of time? It seems like even
> small blocks of wood, glued into the corners would be better than
> nothing for my purposes, especially in the absence of dowels. Gosh, the
> dowels may be a good idea to hold the base frame onto the base. I'll
> keep thinking about it (all)!

Those are braces for the adjustable levelers in the photo of the tansu
cabinet:

http://e-woodshop.net/images/StackedTansu2.JPG

When spanning that much distance on any floor it pays to have a built-in
leveling system.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 11/20/2012 9:59 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 7:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 6:52 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> I will read the whole article before the evening is over. Though, I'm
>>> not sure that my situation is like the one in the article because I'm
>>> using plywood. No one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?
>>
>> Notice that half the links I included deal with a plywood cabinet.
>
>
> I will. Thank you. I'm still reading the article from FWW! : )

You can certainly dovetail some plywood's, and particularly if the parts
dovetailed don't show or are covered with veneer, they don't have to be
pretty/master craftsman grade dovetails.

Dowels and floating tenons, and dadoes and rabbets glued and further
reinforced with dowels and floating tenons (or glued and screwed), can
take the place of M&T joints (and often dovetails) in plywood in many
situations, and provide the necessary strength/stiffness to use the
method described in the article.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 11/23/2012 1:44 PM, Bill wrote:

> I can't argue with your logic.

Absolutely nothing wrong with pocket hole joinery, but, with the
specific goal of using the previously discussed ideas/principles to
mitigate sag in wide casework, particularly plywood casework, pocket
hole joinery would not be something I would use as a substitute for the
joinery that those principles are based upon.

> Paraphrasing a remark I read recently in
> the introduction of a book on cabinetry and framework: There is an
> extensive range of technique and devotion with which one may complete
> a joint... And that was written long before Kreg was created.

Pocket hole joinery, not all that unusual to see in some antique
furniture, has also been around long before Kreg.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:14:40 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman wrote:
>> On 10/27/2012 2:41 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:
>>>>
>>>> Like this:
>>>>
>>>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234
>
>I have put quite a bit of thought into my TV-Stand project since I last
>posted about it. Here is a link to a tv-stand with some features I
>like, though I don't think I'll uses "posts" in the corners--I'll
>probably just use plywood sides. In particular, I like the color, the
>55" length and the the partition into 3 parts:
>
>http://www.thesimpletvstandstore.com/p-10753-home-styles-5532-12-55-wide-hanover-tv-stand-cherry.aspx
>
>This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a base
>with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the Cedar-lined
>chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
>wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise? The rectangular
>piece resting on the base would be made from 3/4" Poplar-core
>(Cherry-veneered) plywood. The shape is still much like in my original
>picture, only the length has grown to 55" now, and it will have a base
>frame!
>: )
>
>(Same As Before)
>http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
>If I/we get passed the sagging issue, then I need to deal with how to
>make the 2 doors (in a "smart" way, i.e. in a way suitable for someone
>who never made a cabinet door before..lol). Would you use the same
>plywood for the rails and stiles of the doors? 1/4" plywood for inset
>panels? I'm supposed to get my jigsaw this week and the
>Formaldehyde-free ("Purebond") 3/4" A-1 Cherry-veneered plywood is $100
>a sheet. The man at Home Depot, Rick, said that was "expensive stuff for
>a beginner" and I agreed with him. The C-3 stuff is probably not as
>suitable (but it's in stock at $45). Could I buy the C-3 grade stuff to
>make the shelves with, or is it likely to be a P-poor match?
>I assume the latter.

You might try (haven't seen anyone point here yet, anyway):

http://www.woodbin.com/calcs/sagulator.htm

Swingman wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 11:24 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Since I lack a biscuit jointer and a TS, I was considering Lew's idea of
>> "fitting in" pieces of 1/4" plywood between vertical panels (attached to
>> the top and bottom) and on the ends. That would be largely equivalent to
>> biscuit joinery, wouldn't it? The top and bottom would also be "banded"
>> at the ends (resting on or in a rebate, respectively).

I sent a reply to this message a few hours ago, but I don't see it.

To be brief, I have said more than once, "Woodworking keeps taking me
places I couldn't have anticipated...", and this is no exception. I'll
have to look into those biscuit eaters, or something. No, not a green
one! :)

Bill


>
> A matter of looks and taste ... doing it that way sort of speaks of a
> kludge to make up for lack of a tool and the skill to use it. If you
> have to take those kinds of shortcuts, you should try to do it in a
> manner that still makes the piece look like well made furniture.
>
> Judging from your model, you can do all we've discussed with a router.
>
> If you don't have one, a router, a complement of bits, and some jigs can
> do excellent service in lieu of many tools, including a table saw and
> plate jointer.
>
>> I see your point. I suppose I could use a hard wood like maple for the
>> frame base. I wouldn't expect Cherry ply to possess "compression
>> strength"; I think it might crumble. Of course, Cheery lumber would
>> probably work very well (if I could locate some 4/4). Is this thinking
>> correct?
>
> From looking at your model, a frameof 3/4" plywood would be more than
> sufficient for the job as a base, or stand.
>
> Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:
>
> Like this:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234
>
>
> (for illustrating a separate _base_ upon which your casework sits ...
> you don't have to make it in "toekick" style, but could use it, and
> dimension and position it, more as a _stand_)
>
> Or with solid wood, or banded plywood:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopTexasTansu2005#5669704295530329154
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopTexasTansu2005#5669704295530329154
>
>
> Or as fancy as having a base with drawers in it:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopWalnutCherryHopeChest200602#5679358359330919090
>
>
> Lots of ways to skin that cat, both with plywood and wood. Keep in mind
> that for most casework of the type in your model, including bases for
> same, plywood is usually a better choice for wood due to its dimensional
> stability ... IOW, you don't have to necessarily design your piece with
> hard to effect joinery that would be necessary to take into account wood
> movement, either from a lack of tools, or the fact that you're still
> developing the skills to use them.
>
> Not to mention that most of that "solid wood", expensive "fine
> furniture" casework you see in furniture stores is often plywood with
> edge banding ... for reasons of dimensional stability, cost and ease of
> manufacture, but it still looks and performs like "fine furniture".
>
> With a TV stand that's both a valid method, and an excellent goal to aim
> for. ;)
>

Swingman wrote:

>
> Or as fancy as having a base with drawers in it:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopWalnutCherryHopeChest200602#5679358359330919090
>

I noticed your base had about a 45 degree (or less) bevel on top. Did
you chest meet it with the reverse bevel, and is the purpose to help
give it a "solid feel"? I enjoyed looking at the pictures.



>
> Lots of ways to skin that cat, both with plywood and wood. Keep in mind
> that for most casework of the type in your model, including bases for
> same, plywood is usually a better choice for wood due to its dimensional
> stability ... IOW, you don't have to necessarily design your piece with
> hard to effect joinery that would be necessary to take into account wood
> movement, either from a lack of tools, or the fact that you're still
> developing the skills to use them.
>
> Not to mention that most of that "solid wood", expensive "fine
> furniture" casework you see in furniture stores is often plywood with
> edge banding ... for reasons of dimensional stability, cost and ease of
> manufacture, but it still looks and performs like "fine furniture".
>
> With a TV stand that's both a valid method, and an excellent goal to aim
> for. ;)

I smiled a little when I asked myself how long it would take me to make
one of those little drawers in the bottom of your chest! It doesn't
look at though you cut any corners on your chest! Nice joinery
throughout! : )

Bill


>

Swingman wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 8:38 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Or as fancy as having a base with drawers in it:
>>>
>>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopWalnutCherryHopeChest200602#5679358359330919090

>>
>> I noticed your base had about a 45 degree (or less) bevel on top. Did
>> you chest meet it with the reverse bevel, and is the purpose to help
>> give it a "solid feel"?

> I don't recall the top of the base being beveled, although it's been a
> few years?
>


I'm sorry, it is/was an "illusion". The light colored center panel looks
higher than the edge of the panel even though it's not.

I was thinking of taking a picture of my "existing tv-configuration" so
you could appreciate why my first drawing may have looked good to me.
We're currently using a $25 Saulder (assemble-yourself) TV-stand that I
purchased in 1985. You could almost buy buy 2 tanks of gas for $25 back
then, but I can't complain about the value it has provided every day
since it went into service. I *am* shooting for the "fine furniture"
look now though, and I'm armed now with some new ideas while I
contemplate my second sketch.

BTW, I noticed some 2" metal braces screwed into the corners of your
base frame. Would such hardware make sense in plywood, afixed with
drywall screws, or would that be a waste of time? It seems like even
small blocks of wood, glued into the corners would be better than
nothing for my purposes, especially in the absence of dowels. Gosh, the
dowels may be a good idea to hold the base frame onto the base. I'll
keep thinking about it (all)!

Cheers,
Bill

Swingman wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 1:33 PM, Bill wrote:
>> BTW, I noticed some 2" metal braces screwed into the corners of your
>> base frame. Would such hardware make sense in plywood, afixed with
>> drywall screws, or would that be a waste of time? It seems like even
>> small blocks of wood, glued into the corners would be better than
>> nothing for my purposes, especially in the absence of dowels. Gosh, the
>> dowels may be a good idea to hold the base frame onto the base. I'll
>> keep thinking about it (all)!
>
> Those are braces for the adjustable levelers in the photo of the tansu
> cabinet:
>
> http://e-woodshop.net/images/StackedTansu2.JPG
>
> When spanning that much distance on any floor it pays to have a built-in
> leveling system.
>

Ah. Great planning. Thank you. That raises some questions I'll try to
investigate for myself.

Bill

Swingman wrote:

> Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:
>
> Like this:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234

I didn't realize at first there was more than one picture here! It
looks like it will help give me a "leg up" in my cabinet-making! Thank
you!

Bill

Swingman wrote:

> You gotta be brave, or foolish, or both to undertake some of these
> projects ...

I just came home with 2 selections from Half-Price Books:

Shelves, Closets & Cabinets, P. Jones, 1977.
Success With Biscuit Joiners, A. Bailey, 2007.

I think I'm brave and foolish enough for my current project.

I've been thinking a "practice box" makes a lot of sense.
I could practice my joinery and my finishing on it to help
avoid more expensive surprises.

Bill

Swingman wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 2:41 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:
>>>
>>> Like this:
>>>
>>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234

I have put quite a bit of thought into my TV-Stand project since I last
posted about it. Here is a link to a tv-stand with some features I
like, though I don't think I'll uses "posts" in the corners--I'll
probably just use plywood sides. In particular, I like the color, the
55" length and the the partition into 3 parts:

http://www.thesimpletvstandstore.com/p-10753-home-styles-5532-12-55-wide-hanover-tv-stand-cherry.aspx

This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a base
with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the Cedar-lined
chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise? The rectangular
piece resting on the base would be made from 3/4" Poplar-core
(Cherry-veneered) plywood. The shape is still much like in my original
picture, only the length has grown to 55" now, and it will have a base
frame!
: )

(Same As Before)
http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/


If I/we get passed the sagging issue, then I need to deal with how to
make the 2 doors (in a "smart" way, i.e. in a way suitable for someone
who never made a cabinet door before..lol). Would you use the same
plywood for the rails and stiles of the doors? 1/4" plywood for inset
panels? I'm supposed to get my jigsaw this week and the
Formaldehyde-free ("Purebond") 3/4" A-1 Cherry-veneered plywood is $100
a sheet. The man at Home Depot, Rick, said that was "expensive stuff for
a beginner" and I agreed with him. The C-3 stuff is probably not as
suitable (but it's in stock at $45). Could I buy the C-3 grade stuff to
make the shelves with, or is it likely to be a P-poor match?
I assume the latter.

Bill

Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 10/27/2012 2:41 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:
>>>>
>>>> Like this:
>>>>
>>>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234
>>>>
>
> I have put quite a bit of thought into my TV-Stand project since I last
> posted about it. Here is a link to a tv-stand with some features I
> like, though I don't think I'll uses "posts" in the corners--I'll
> probably just use plywood sides. In particular, I like the color, the
> 55" length and the the partition into 3 parts:
>
> http://www.thesimpletvstandstore.com/p-10753-home-styles-5532-12-55-wide-hanover-tv-stand-cherry.aspx

I was just checking the reviews, and one of them had the nerve to
say it was "hard to assemble"! : ) Also, it was mentioned that the
shelves were not level--so if anyone asks why I wanted to build my own,
I can just mention that (and watch the expression on his or her face).

>
>
> This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a base
> with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the Cedar-lined
> chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
> wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise? The rectangular
> piece resting on the base would be made from 3/4" Poplar-core
> (Cherry-veneered) plywood. The shape is still much like in my original
> picture, only the length has grown to 55" now, and it will have a base
> frame!
> : )
>
> (Same As Before)
> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
> If I/we get passed the sagging issue, then I need to deal with how to
> make the 2 doors (in a "smart" way, i.e. in a way suitable for someone
> who never made a cabinet door before..lol). Would you use the same
> plywood for the rails and stiles of the doors? 1/4" plywood for inset
> panels? I'm supposed to get my jigsaw this week and the
> Formaldehyde-free ("Purebond") 3/4" A-1 Cherry-veneered plywood is $100
> a sheet. The man at Home Depot, Rick, said that was "expensive stuff for
> a beginner" and I agreed with him. The C-3 stuff is probably not as
> suitable (but it's in stock at $45). Could I buy the C-3 grade stuff to
> make the shelves with, or is it likely to be a P-poor match?
> I assume the latter.
>
> Bill

Bill wrote:

> If I/we get passed the sagging issue, then I need to deal with how to
> make the 2 doors (in a "smart" way, i.e. in a way suitable for someone
> who never made a cabinet door before..lol). Would you use the same
> plywood for the rails and stiles of the doors? 1/4" plywood for inset
> panels?

I assume I make the "back" from the rest of the 1/4" plywood?
Rebated-in, of course! A router table would be nice... even make-shift
one.

BTW, in a similar model in a magazine, I noticed that they connected the
ends of the top and bottom to the case with "tongue-and-dado" joints,
rather than just rebates. Am I likely to accomplish that with a router?
: ) Delivery of my TS is only a button-click away, but I keep
postponing it, until I "really need it", or I (start and) finish
painting! : )


>
> Bill

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a
>> base
>> with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the
>> Cedar-lined
>> chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
>> wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Depends on the vertical height of the side and rear panels.
>
> The larger the height value, the stiffer the box.
>
> Some basic strength of materials.
>
> I (Moment of Inertia) = (b*h^3)/12

Are you saying that *sag* is related to a rotational force?

Concerning "sag", it seem like we should be measuring the distribution
of mass between supports. If F=md is the force in the middle (of the
horizontal beam) and it is low, then we should experience less sagging,
right? The "trick" seems to be to make sure d is small. h appears to
have little to do with it. Not being an engineer, I only have a very
basic grasp of the concepts.

Please feel free to correct me, I like learning new things.

Cheers,
Bill




>
> For a rectangle
>
> Where b = base; h = height
> -----------------------------------------------------
> The larger the value of "I", the stiffer the beam will be.
>
> The above is a very basic explanation.
>
> For an in-depth explanation, construct a Strength of Materials
> engineering text.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
>

On 11/19/2012 3:38 PM, Bill wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
...

>> Depends on the vertical height of the side and rear panels.
>> The larger the height value, the stiffer the box.
>>
>> Some basic strength of materials.
>> I (Moment of Inertia) = (b*h^3)/12
>
> Are you saying that *sag* is related to a rotational force?
>
> Concerning "sag", it seem like we should be measuring the distribution
> of mass between supports. If F=md is the force in the middle (of the
> horizontal beam) and it is low, then we should experience less sagging,
> right? The "trick" seems to be to make sure d is small. h appears to
> have little to do with it. Not being an engineer, I only have a very
> basic grasp of the concepts.
>
> Please feel free to correct me, I like learning new things.
...

Well, that's a moment of inertia, yes, but it's not particularly apropos
to the problem at hand--that's I for a solid rectangle about it's
horizontal axis of rotation. That really is not a good model for the
casework problem.

The problem there is a combination of several factors including

joint stiffness -- that's what the article/construction methods address
mostly

material properties -- wood isn't terribly stiff as compared to metals
so w/ time it will droop if unsupported spans are too long or not
sufficient material in cross section. It's that piece of (say) 3/4 face
frame spanning an opening that is dependent on the above moment of
inertia--as you're well aware, if you make a piece 2" wide it's much
stiffer an will support more load than will a piece 1-1/2" wide (loaded
vertically, piece on edge). That's the explanation for that particular
part of the problem.

On a casework box, though, making it taller and looking at the penchant
for the piece to sag between legs is more to do with how stiff the
joints of the box are. The box is open to the face and so the sag is
crossways, not lengthways that is significant so the aforementioned I
isn't the right direction nor for the geometry.

hth...

--

Swingman wrote:
<snip>



Thank you for your post. I haven't finished getting all of the meat off
of the bone yet! : )

Bill

Swingman wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 9:14 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a base
>> with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the Cedar-lined
>> chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
>> wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise?
>
>
> Sagging furniture, a function of its span, is indeed a major
> consideration to take into account in designing and building casework.
>
> I spent a goodly number of years noting and observing the effects of
> span on antique casework, and the historical attempts to mitigate
> sagging as a result of too great a span in furniture like sideboards and
> hutches.
>
> Each time I ran across a wide antique piece I really liked, it seemed to
> suffer the ravages of sag due to its longevity ... drawers that no
> longer opened or closed fully, and doors no longer coinciding with their
> openings. This propensity for sagging was particularly apparent in those
> type pieces made in the Arts & Crafts period of the late 1800 and early
> 1900's.
>
> The obvious solution to sagging casework is to decrease the span, either
> by making the piece less wide, something that does not always lend
> itself to the preferred design, or by adding interim support.
>
> One of the traditional ways to mitigate sag in these wider pieces was to
> add middle legs:
>
> http://www.jamesdewandsons.com/accent-tables/3031-sideboard.php
>
> Admittedly a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing solution, providing
> you like the style.
>
> When I decided to design and build a wide sideboard to my own tastes, I
> totally discounted the idea of six legs. Not only did the addition of
> extra legs not fit in with my preferred style, it also increased the
> problems of situating a piece of furniture on floors that are not
> perfectly flat.
>
> I did a good bit of research into the matter in the intervening years
> and it was not until I ran across an article in the Sep/Oct 1999 issue
> of "Fine Wood Working" magazine, by Will Neptune, entitled "Sideboard
> Strategies", whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking
> school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction
> method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction -
> basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached to
> the box, that I found a solution I thought I could live with.


I was able to read a page and a half of the article online. Then I
realized I owned the book I was reading out of (at Google books),
Taunton's (Best of FWW): "Designing Furniture". I will read the whole
article before the evening is over. Though, I'm not sure that my
situation is like the one in the article because I'm using plywood. No
one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?

>
> In a nutshell, the basic principle of this particular casework
> construction method is:
>
> "If a case part joins another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part
> meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."
>
> Since then I have used this basic principle, with some occasional
> modifications, in quite a few pieces of casework, both furniture and
> kitchen cabinets.
>
> Careful studying the photos in the links below should give you an idea
> of how to use this principle to mitigate sag in your casework:

I found the picture of the sideboard at the link you posted above to be
insightful

>
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/Projects13.htm
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345191725374850
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345214454781186
>
>
> Resulting in:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionStyleSideboardPrototype02#5679356036822986818
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345657939212162
>
>
> Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any questions.
>
> (If you can get a copy of the above mentioned article, do so ... it
> covers using this principle in many more styles than what I show above)
>

Swingman wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 9:14 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a base
>> with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the Cedar-lined
>> chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
>> wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise?
>
>
> Sagging furniture, a function of its span, is indeed a major
> consideration to take into account in designing and building casework.
>
> I spent a goodly number of years noting and observing the effects of
> span on antique casework, and the historical attempts to mitigate
> sagging as a result of too great a span in furniture like sideboards and
> hutches.
>
> Each time I ran across a wide antique piece I really liked, it seemed to
> suffer the ravages of sag due to its longevity ... drawers that no
> longer opened or closed fully, and doors no longer coinciding with their
> openings. This propensity for sagging was particularly apparent in those
> type pieces made in the Arts & Crafts period of the late 1800 and early
> 1900's.
>
> The obvious solution to sagging casework is to decrease the span, either
> by making the piece less wide, something that does not always lend
> itself to the preferred design, or by adding interim support.
>
> One of the traditional ways to mitigate sag in these wider pieces was to
> add middle legs:
>
> http://www.jamesdewandsons.com/accent-tables/3031-sideboard.php
>
> Admittedly a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing solution, providing
> you like the style.
>
> When I decided to design and build a wide sideboard to my own tastes, I
> totally discounted the idea of six legs. Not only did the addition of
> extra legs not fit in with my preferred style, it also increased the
> problems of situating a piece of furniture on floors that are not
> perfectly flat.
>
> I did a good bit of research into the matter in the intervening years
> and it was not until I ran across an article in the Sep/Oct 1999 issue
> of "Fine Wood Working" magazine, by Will Neptune, entitled "Sideboard
> Strategies", whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking
> school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction
> method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction -
> basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached to
> the box, that I found a solution I thought I could live with.


I was able to read a page and a half of the article online. Then I
realized I owned the book I was reading out of (at Google books),
Taunton's (Best of FWW): "Designing Furniture". I will read the whole
article before the evening is over. Though, I'm not sure that my
situation is like the one in the article because I'm using plywood. No
one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?

>
> In a nutshell, the basic principle of this particular casework
> construction method is:
>
> "If a case part joins another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part
> meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."
>
> Since then I have used this basic principle, with some occasional
> modifications, in quite a few pieces of casework, both furniture and
> kitchen cabinets.
>
> Careful studying the photos in the links below should give you an idea
> of how to use this principle to mitigate sag in your casework:

I found the picture of the sideboard at the link you posted above to be
insightful

>
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/Projects13.htm
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345191725374850
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345214454781186
>
>
> Resulting in:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionStyleSideboardPrototype02#5679356036822986818
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345657939212162
>
>
> Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any questions.
>
> (If you can get a copy of the above mentioned article, do so ... it
> covers using this principle in many more styles than what I show above)
>

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:01:03 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> If I/we get passed the sagging issue, then I need to deal with how to
>>> make the 2 doors (in a "smart" way, i.e. in a way suitable for someone
>>> who never made a cabinet door before..lol). Would you use the same
>>> plywood for the rails and stiles of the doors? 1/4" plywood for inset
>>> panels?
>
> Didn't you have a nice local cabinet shop supplier who could provide
> your cabinet-grade cherry ply rather than going through HD?

I didn't try him this time around, at least not yet. When I explained a
while back that I wanted 1 sheet of Formaldehyde free (for my drill
press), he wasn't too enthused. At least Rick (that's what I call him
now), at HD, is nice. He was telling me about some of his projects.
It may be worthwhile to try the lumberyard again... Thanks for
mentioning it.


>
>
>> I assume I make the "back" from the rest of the 1/4" plywood?
>> Rebated-in, of course! A router table would be nice... even make-shift
>> one.
>
> Here ya go. https://post.craigslist.org/manage/3389858818 <vbg>

I got an error on that link.



>
>
>
>> BTW, in a similar model in a magazine, I noticed that they connected the
>> ends of the top and bottom to the case with "tongue-and-dado" joints,
>
> ? That's a new one on me.

It don't think it's "that" novel. You route a 3/8" groove on a side,
3/8" down from the top and make a 3/8" rabbit, 3/8" deep on the end of
the top and you're R&R! : ) Maybe it's just the name that through you
off. That's what they called it in WoodSmith magazine.

>
>
>> rather than just rebates. Am I likely to accomplish that with a router?
>
> Sure, that and a mallet and chisel, once you figure out how they've
> done it in the mag.
>
>
>
>> : ) Delivery of my TS is only a button-click away, but I keep
>> postponing it, until I "really need it", or I (start and) finish
>> painting! : )
>
> So put those higher on your To-Do List, Bill. I don't recall where
> you ended up in your shop makeover. (Electrical, drywall, prime,
> paint, and lighting would be the order of my list)

I'm basically down to my finish coat of drywall compound--1 wall down, 2
to go. Then I can prime and paint, etc. I've already got the paint
rollers, etc., as I was hoping to get to that last summer.



>
> --
> Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
> based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
> I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
> I have received and am still receiving.
> -- Albert Einstein
>

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Depends on the vertical height of the side and rear panels.
>>
>> The larger the height value, the stiffer the box.
>>
>> Some basic strength of materials.
>>
>> I (Moment of Inertia) = (b*h^3)/12
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Bill wrote:
>
>
>> Are you saying that *sag* is related to a rotational force?
>>
>> Concerning "sag", it seem like we should be measuring the
>> distribution of mass between supports. If F=md is the force in the
>> middle (of the horizontal beam) and it is low, then we should
>> experience less sagging, right? The "trick" seems to be to make sure
>> d is small. h appears to have little to do with it. Not being an
>> engineer, I only have a very basic grasp of the concepts.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> The math confirms the following.
>
> A 2by4 supported at each end will be stiffer if the 4" side is
> vertical
> rather than the 2" side.
>
> The taller a vertical panel is the more "sag resistant" it is.
>
> That's why the face frame is so important for case goods or the
> apron for a table.


Now, I appreciate the clarity of that explanation! : )

I learned, at least, that I'm not going to undersize my face frame!


>
> It is also why 1/4" plywood panels nailed to the studs at the corners
> of
> a building makes the building far more earthquake proof.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

On 11/20/2012 7:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 6:52 PM, Bill wrote:
>> I will read the whole article before the evening is over. Though, I'm
>> not sure that my situation is like the one in the article because I'm
>> using plywood. No one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?
>
> Notice that half the links I included deal with a plywood cabinet.
>


I will. Thank you. I'm still reading the article from FWW! : )

On 11/20/2012 11:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 9:59 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 7:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2012 6:52 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> I will read the whole article before the evening is over. Though, I'm
>>>> not sure that my situation is like the one in the article because I'm
>>>> using plywood. No one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?
>>>
>>> Notice that half the links I included deal with a plywood cabinet.
>>
>>
>> I will. Thank you. I'm still reading the article from FWW! : )
>
> You can certainly dovetail some plywood's, and particularly if the parts
> dovetailed don't show or are covered with veneer, they don't have to be
> pretty/master craftsman grade dovetails.
>
> Dowels and floating tenons, and dadoes and rabbets glued and further
> reinforced with dowels and floating tenons (or glued and screwed), can
> take the place of M&T joints (and often dovetails) in plywood in many
> situations, and provide the necessary strength/stiffness to use the
> method described in the article.
>

With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
dowel with a sharp chisel?

At least the way the FWW article started, the emphasis concerned natural
changes in the wood due to it's environment. I understand we want a
"strong box" lying on it's side. I'll keep reading! : )

I might need a "floating tenon" if I attached my plywood box to a
natural wood base frame, huh? I like to try to let you know that it's
not all going over my head! : )

Cheers,
Bill

Bill wrote:

>
> With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
> dowel with a sharp chisel?
>

Or... a trim saw with no set to the teeth. HF carries them cheap, and they
work fine. Just lay it flush on the piece and cut off the dowel.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Sorry for the duplicate Karl, newsreader error.



On 11/20/2012 1:28 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 11:45 AM, Bill wrote:

>> I might need a "floating tenon" if I attached my plywood box to a
>> natural wood base frame, huh?
>
> Not necessarily ...

Because the length of natural wood is reasonably stable?

>
>
>> I like to try to let you know that it's
>> not all going over my head! : )
>
> That part did. :)
>
> Example of one of the principles of this particular casework
> construction method:
>
> "... if one part meets along another's length, use multiple through
> tenons."
>
> Notice the through tenons in the photograph (trimmed flush):
>
> http://e-woodshop.net/images/MSBDTCase3.JPG



Ah yes, "loose tenons", why didn't you say so! : )

On 11/20/2012 1:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
>> dowel with a sharp chisel?
>>
>
> Or... a trim saw with no set to the teeth. HF carries them cheap, and they
> work fine.


Thanks Mike! I can afford to save a few bucks.



Just lay it flush on the piece and cut off the dowel.
>

Bill wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 1:37 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
>>> dowel with a sharp chisel?
>>>
>>
>> Or... a trim saw with no set to the teeth. HF carries them cheap,
>> and they work fine.
>
>
> Thanks Mike! I can afford to save a few bucks.
>

You bet. Here's the link to the HF site with the saw I was talking about.
There are two on the page, but the only one I am familiar with and have used
(own) is the Japanese Flush Cut Saw. Very sharp! You'd have to look at the
cheaper one in the store yourself to compare them.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

CW wrote:
>
>
> "Bill" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On 11/20/2012 11:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 9:59 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2012 7:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/2012 6:52 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> I will read the whole article before the evening is over. Though, I'm
>>>>> not sure that my situation is like the one in the article because I'm
>>>>> using plywood. No one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?
>>>>
>>>> Notice that half the links I included deal with a plywood cabinet.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will. Thank you. I'm still reading the article from FWW! : )
>>
>> You can certainly dovetail some plywood's, and particularly if the parts
>> dovetailed don't show or are covered with veneer, they don't have to be
>> pretty/master craftsman grade dovetails.
>>
>> Dowels and floating tenons, and dadoes and rabbets glued and further
>> reinforced with dowels and floating tenons (or glued and screwed), can
>> take the place of M&T joints (and often dovetails) in plywood in many
>> situations, and provide the necessary strength/stiffness to use the
>> method described in the article.
>>
>
> With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
> dowel with a sharp chisel?
>
> At least the way the FWW article started, the emphasis concerned natural
> changes in the wood due to it's environment. I understand we want a
> "strong box" lying on it's side. I'll keep reading! : )
>
> I might need a "floating tenon" if I attached my plywood box to a
> natural wood base frame, huh? I like to try to let you know that it's
> not all going over my head! : )
> ======================================================================================================
>
> Make it easy on yourself. Get a pocket hole jig.

I can't argue with your logic. Paraphrasing a remark I read recently in
the introduction of a book on cabinetry and framework: There is an
extensive range of technique and devotion with which one may complete a
joint... And that was written long before Kreg was created.

Swingman wrote:
<snip> ... it was not until I ran across an article in the Sep/Oct 1999
issue
> of "Fine Wood Working" magazine, by Will Neptune, entitled "Sideboard
> Strategies", whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking
> school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction
> method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction -
> basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached to
> the box, that I found a solution I thought I could live with.
>
> In a nutshell, the basic principle of this particular casework
> construction method is:
>
> "If a case part joins another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part
> meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."

I finished reading Will Neptune's article last night. I will make a
short list of what I gleaned from it later, but it should definitely
improve my game! I'll be watching for other of his publications (I
noticed he co-authored a book, "Introduction to Fine Woodworking".

He repeated what you quoted at least 3 times: "If a case part joins
another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part meets along another's
length, use multiple through tenons." : )

Okay (don't push..LOL), here are the highlights of what I gleaned:

--The tenons from the inserts going through the top can help prevent
sagging (at least he says so, and it's believable).

--Extra wood is not a bad thing. For instance consider screwing the top
to the (solid) "box". Build up extra wood on the sides (inside),
between the legs to that there is a nice surface to support the edge of
a drawer. I'm not planning on using drawers but it's still a nice idea.

--The notion of a "cleat" to support the panels in the back was a new
notion to me.

--He said he generally uses stops on his cabinet doors. That led me to
try to figure out what he was talking about and to spend my lunch hour
examining hinges. I'll have to decide whether I'll be using a face frame
or not. I'm due for another SU session.

Next, I can take a careful look at the links below.

Bill



>
> Since then I have used this basic principle, with some occasional
> modifications, in quite a few pieces of casework, both furniture and
> kitchen cabinets.
>
> Careful studying the photos in the links below should give you an idea
> of how to use this principle to mitigate sag in your casework:
>
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/Projects13.htm
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345191725374850
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345214454781186
>
>
> Resulting in:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionStyleSideboardPrototype02#5679356036822986818
>
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345657939212162
>
>
> Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any questions.
>
> (If you can get a copy of the above mentioned article, do so ... it
> covers using this principle in many more styles than what I show above)
>

Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
> <snip> ... it was not until I ran across an article in the Sep/Oct 1999
> issue
>> of "Fine Wood Working" magazine, by Will Neptune, entitled "Sideboard
>> Strategies", whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking
>> school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction
>> method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction -
>> basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached to
>> the box, that I found a solution I thought I could live with.
>>
>> In a nutshell, the basic principle of this particular casework
>> construction method is:
>>
>> "If a case part joins another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part
>> meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."
>
> I finished reading Will Neptune's article last night. I will make a
> short list of what I gleaned from it later, but it should definitely
> improve my game! I'll be watching for other of his publications (I
> noticed he co-authored a book, "Introduction to Fine Woodworking".
>
> He repeated what you quoted at least 3 times: "If a case part joins
> another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part meets along another's
> length, use multiple through tenons." : )
>
> Okay (don't push..LOL), here are the highlights of what I gleaned:

Also, after reading the article, I realized my expectation of what
"biscuit joinery" could do for me were probably inflated. In other
words, Biscuits are not tenons...

I found the Japanese (zero-set) dowel saw at Harbor Freight today, but
they wouldn't accept their recently-expired coupon. It will yield less
than $2 savings, but it's the principle of the thing! The saw is
remarkably flexible--much more-so than the cashier! : )

>
> --The tenons from the inserts going through the top can help prevent
> sagging (at least he says so, and it's believable).
>
> --Extra wood is not a bad thing. For instance consider screwing the top
> to the (solid) "box". Build up extra wood on the sides (inside),
> between the legs to that there is a nice surface to support the edge of
> a drawer. I'm not planning on using drawers but it's still a nice idea.
>
> --The notion of a "cleat" to support the panels in the back was a new
> notion to me.
>
> --He said he generally uses stops on his cabinet doors. That led me to
> try to figure out what he was talking about and to spend my lunch hour
> examining hinges. I'll have to decide whether I'll be using a face frame
> or not. I'm due for another SU session.
>
> Next, I can take a careful look at the links below.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>>
>> Since then I have used this basic principle, with some occasional
>> modifications, in quite a few pieces of casework, both furniture and
>> kitchen cabinets.
>>
>> Careful studying the photos in the links below should give you an idea
>> of how to use this principle to mitigate sag in your casework:
>>
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/Projects13.htm
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345191725374850
>>
>>
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345214454781186
>>
>>
>>
>> Resulting in:
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionStyleSideboardPrototype02#5679356036822986818
>>
>>
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345657939212162
>>
>>
>>
>> Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any questions.
>>
>> (If you can get a copy of the above mentioned article, do so ... it
>> covers using this principle in many more styles than what I show above)
>>
>

Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:

>> Since then I have used this basic principle, with some occasional
>> modifications, in quite a few pieces of casework, both furniture and
>> kitchen cabinets.
>>
>> Careful studying the photos in the links below should give you an idea
>> of how to use this principle to mitigate sag in your casework:
>>
>> http://www.e-woodshop.net/Projects13.htm
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345191725374850
>>
>>
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345214454781186
>>
>>
>>
>> Resulting in:
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionStyleSideboardPrototype02#5679356036822986818
>>
>>
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345657939212162
>>
>>
>>
>> Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any questions.
>>

After looking at all of your pictures, it makes me sort of ashamed I
only have one little TV-Stand to worry about so far! : )

In-set cabinet doors would be a nice touch--though it appears the
tolerances for fitting them are quite small!

The article emphasized it would really really look crappy if the
vertical inserts are not parallel. It also emphasized the need for a
very good fit of the inserts into the dado's, so that the top and bottom
stay parallel. So even if I forget everything I learned in the article,
I still got a good lesson in craftmanship!

Even as I write, this thing is coming together. I think that this job
calls for a TS to easily meet the requirements (of parallel vertical
inserts).

Bill

Swingman wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 10:14 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>> In-set cabinet doors would be a nice touch--though it appears the
>> tolerances for fitting them are quite small!
>
> Generally 1/16 to 3/32. That is why 'square' is so important in cabinet
> making.
>
> Inset doors and drawers are not that difficult as long as the casework
> is square, and remains that way, does not sag/rack, over time.
>
>> The article emphasized it would really really look crappy if the
>> vertical inserts are not parallel. It also emphasized the need for a
>> very good fit of the inserts into the dado's, so that the top and bottom
>> stay parallel. So even if I forget everything I learned in the article,
>> I still got a good lesson in craftmanship!
>
> <Preach mode>
>
> Once again, the holy grail is "square" ... as a cabinetmaker, live, or
> die by it.
>
> One way to insure square is to batch cut every part with the same
> settings on the machine and, likewise batch cut all like dadoes and
> grooves, at the same time with the same, undisturbed, machine setup.
>
> As long as your parts are dimensioned properly, batch cutting/routing
> goes a long way toward obtaining square ... _stock thickness is
> extremely important, because with sheet goods, thickness is not
> necessarily the same from one lot/stack of plywood to the next_ .
>
> In short, _batch cut_ all like project parts, and elements
> (dadoes/grooves, etc) of like size and placement, before
> disturbing/moving any machine setup, fence, depth, etc.
>
> </Preach mode>

I believe everything you said. Just choosing my workbench project as an
example, some of the 4by4 stuff I used for the legs was a bit
warped/twisted. While I am appreciating the significance of "square",
I don't take it for granted (anymore)! Hopefully, my plywood will be
flat, but I doubt I should count on it. So in a nutshell, "square" has
not been a friend of mine, I hardly ever see her, but I'll keep working
on that. "Square" is beginning to remind me of the sirens/mermaids
that were said to lure the captains of their ships to a shipwreck! ; )

Swingman wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 10:14 PM, Bill wrote:
>> In-set cabinet doors would be a nice touch--though it appears the
>> tolerances for fitting them are quite small!
>
> Here's a nice little "EZ" method/trick, a la Sam Maloof and his
> "Hollywood style", for taking most of the pain out of doing a bunch of
> inset doors ... simply round over the door edges.
>
> Doing so makes any imprecision in the gap disappear.
>
> This works particularly well when you use contrasting woods for the face
> frame and the inset doors, thusly:
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopTexasTansu2005#5815928801557670066
>
>
> Keep that one in your saddle bags, highly useful. ;)
>

Yes, I see that. TYVM!

I assume that you used biscuits at the corners where the rails and
stiles meet? Is that 3/4" plywood (in the "panel" of the door)? Not too
heavy, huh?

I picked up my Milwaukee jigsaw today (I had to order it).

I need to do more designing (and I may use your "roundover trick" on the
edges of the doors)! I was using my tape measure last night to help
measuring my imaginary tv stand along with the TV that will rest on it.
It's a good thing I learned about the imaginary numbers! ; )

"Bill" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 11/20/2012 11:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 9:59 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 7:31 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2012 6:52 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> I will read the whole article before the evening is over. Though, I'm
>>>> not sure that my situation is like the one in the article because I'm
>>>> using plywood. No one makes dovetail or M&T joints in plywood, right?
>>>
>>> Notice that half the links I included deal with a plywood cabinet.
>>
>>
>> I will. Thank you. I'm still reading the article from FWW! : )
>
> You can certainly dovetail some plywood's, and particularly if the parts
> dovetailed don't show or are covered with veneer, they don't have to be
> pretty/master craftsman grade dovetails.
>
> Dowels and floating tenons, and dadoes and rabbets glued and further
> reinforced with dowels and floating tenons (or glued and screwed), can
> take the place of M&T joints (and often dovetails) in plywood in many
> situations, and provide the necessary strength/stiffness to use the
> method described in the article.
>

With exposed-dowel joinery on veneered plywood, do you take down the
dowel with a sharp chisel?

At least the way the FWW article started, the emphasis concerned natural
changes in the wood due to it's environment. I understand we want a
"strong box" lying on it's side. I'll keep reading! : )

I might need a "floating tenon" if I attached my plywood box to a
natural wood base frame, huh? I like to try to let you know that it's
not all going over my head! : )
======================================================================================================
Make it easy on yourself. Get a pocket hole jig.

Cheers,
Bill

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:01:03 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>
>> If I/we get passed the sagging issue, then I need to deal with how to
>> make the 2 doors (in a "smart" way, i.e. in a way suitable for someone
>> who never made a cabinet door before..lol). Would you use the same
>> plywood for the rails and stiles of the doors? 1/4" plywood for inset
>> panels?

Didn't you have a nice local cabinet shop supplier who could provide
your cabinet-grade cherry ply rather than going through HD?


>I assume I make the "back" from the rest of the 1/4" plywood?
>Rebated-in, of course! A router table would be nice... even make-shift
>one.

Here ya go. https://post.craigslist.org/manage/3389858818 <vbg>



>BTW, in a similar model in a magazine, I noticed that they connected the
>ends of the top and bottom to the case with "tongue-and-dado" joints,

? That's a new one on me.


>rather than just rebates. Am I likely to accomplish that with a router?

Sure, that and a mallet and chisel, once you figure out how they've
done it in the mag.



>: ) Delivery of my TS is only a button-click away, but I keep
>postponing it, until I "really need it", or I (start and) finish
>painting! : )

So put those higher on your To-Do List, Bill. I don't recall where
you ended up in your shop makeover. (Electrical, drywall, prime,
paint, and lighting would be the order of my list)

--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

On 11/28/2012 10:09 AM, Bill wrote:

> So in a nutshell, "square" has not been a friend of mine, I hardly ever
> see her, but I'll keep working on that. "Square" is beginning to
> remind me of the sirens/mermaids that were said to lure the captains of
> their ships to a shipwreck! ; )

Batch cut, to the stick, parts ... as we speak:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionBarStool#5815601833900404594

and that's not counting the sixteen, batch cut/routed legs ...

And there is still no guarantee that the bar stools will sit square
without a good deal more futzing doing assembly/glue-up

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 11/27/2012 10:14 PM, Bill wrote:

> In-set cabinet doors would be a nice touch--though it appears the
> tolerances for fitting them are quite small!

Generally 1/16 to 3/32. That is why 'square' is so important in cabinet
making.

Inset doors and drawers are not that difficult as long as the casework
is square, and remains that way, does not sag/rack, over time.

> The article emphasized it would really really look crappy if the
> vertical inserts are not parallel. It also emphasized the need for a
> very good fit of the inserts into the dado's, so that the top and bottom
> stay parallel. So even if I forget everything I learned in the article,
> I still got a good lesson in craftmanship!

<Preach mode>

Once again, the holy grail is "square" ... as a cabinetmaker, live, or
die by it.

One way to insure square is to batch cut every part with the same
settings on the machine and, likewise batch cut all like dadoes and
grooves, at the same time with the same, undisturbed, machine setup.

As long as your parts are dimensioned properly, batch cutting/routing
goes a long way toward obtaining square ... _stock thickness is
extremely important, because with sheet goods, thickness is not
necessarily the same from one lot/stack of plywood to the next_ .

In short, _batch cut_ all like project parts, and elements
(dadoes/grooves, etc) of like size and placement, before
disturbing/moving any machine setup, fence, depth, etc.

</Preach mode>


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 10/26/2012 11:24 AM, Bill wrote:
> Since I lack a biscuit jointer and a TS, I was considering Lew's idea of
> "fitting in" pieces of 1/4" plywood between vertical panels (attached to
> the top and bottom) and on the ends. That would be largely equivalent to
> biscuit joinery, wouldn't it? The top and bottom would also be "banded"
> at the ends (resting on or in a rebate, respectively).

A matter of looks and taste ... doing it that way sort of speaks of a
kludge to make up for lack of a tool and the skill to use it. If you
have to take those kinds of shortcuts, you should try to do it in a
manner that still makes the piece look like well made furniture.

Judging from your model, you can do all we've discussed with a router.

If you don't have one, a router, a complement of bits, and some jigs can
do excellent service in lieu of many tools, including a table saw and
plate jointer.

> I see your point. I suppose I could use a hard wood like maple for the
> frame base. I wouldn't expect Cherry ply to possess "compression
> strength"; I think it might crumble. Of course, Cheery lumber would
> probably work very well (if I could locate some 4/4). Is this thinking
> correct?

From looking at your model, a frameof 3/4" plywood would be more than
sufficient for the job as a base, or stand.

Lots of ways to approach a frame to hold your casework, just a couple:

Like this:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345529474823234

(for illustrating a separate _base_ upon which your casework sits ...
you don't have to make it in "toekick" style, but could use it, and
dimension and position it, more as a _stand_)

Or with solid wood, or banded plywood:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopTexasTansu2005#5669704295530329154

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopTexasTansu2005#5669704295530329154

Or as fancy as having a base with drawers in it:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopWalnutCherryHopeChest200602#5679358359330919090

Lots of ways to skin that cat, both with plywood and wood. Keep in mind
that for most casework of the type in your model, including bases for
same, plywood is usually a better choice for wood due to its dimensional
stability ... IOW, you don't have to necessarily design your piece with
hard to effect joinery that would be necessary to take into account wood
movement, either from a lack of tools, or the fact that you're still
developing the skills to use them.

Not to mention that most of that "solid wood", expensive "fine
furniture" casework you see in furniture stores is often plywood with
edge banding ... for reasons of dimensional stability, cost and ease of
manufacture, but it still looks and performs like "fine furniture".

With a TV stand that's both a valid method, and an excellent goal to aim
for. ;)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 11/18/2012 9:14 PM, Bill wrote:

> This raises the question that has been kicking me around: Given a base
> with only 4 legs of support at the corners (say, like on the Cedar-lined
> chest you made for your daughter, only longer and wider),
> wouldn't the frame be inclined to *sag* length-wise?


Sagging furniture, a function of its span, is indeed a major
consideration to take into account in designing and building casework.

I spent a goodly number of years noting and observing the effects of
span on antique casework, and the historical attempts to mitigate
sagging as a result of too great a span in furniture like sideboards and
hutches.

Each time I ran across a wide antique piece I really liked, it seemed to
suffer the ravages of sag due to its longevity ... drawers that no
longer opened or closed fully, and doors no longer coinciding with their
openings. This propensity for sagging was particularly apparent in those
type pieces made in the Arts & Crafts period of the late 1800 and early
1900's.

The obvious solution to sagging casework is to decrease the span, either
by making the piece less wide, something that does not always lend
itself to the preferred design, or by adding interim support.

One of the traditional ways to mitigate sag in these wider pieces was to
add middle legs:

http://www.jamesdewandsons.com/accent-tables/3031-sideboard.php

Admittedly a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing solution, providing
you like the style.

When I decided to design and build a wide sideboard to my own tastes, I
totally discounted the idea of six legs. Not only did the addition of
extra legs not fit in with my preferred style, it also increased the
problems of situating a piece of furniture on floors that are not
perfectly flat.

I did a good bit of research into the matter in the intervening years
and it was not until I ran across an article in the Sep/Oct 1999 issue
of "Fine Wood Working" magazine, by Will Neptune, entitled "Sideboard
Strategies", whereby the author, a teacher at a respected woodworking
school in Boston, taught/proposed a four part, casework construction
method that was a bit unusual for traditional sideboard construction -
basically a dovetailed box, turned on its side, with legs attached to
the box, that I found a solution I thought I could live with.

In a nutshell, the basic principle of this particular casework
construction method is:

"If a case part joins another at a corner, dovetail it; if one part
meets along another's length, use multiple through tenons."

Since then I have used this basic principle, with some occasional
modifications, in quite a few pieces of casework, both furniture and
kitchen cabinets.

Careful studying the photos in the links below should give you an idea
of how to use this principle to mitigate sag in your casework:

http://www.e-woodshop.net/Projects13.htm

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345191725374850

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345214454781186

Resulting in:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopMissionStyleSideboardPrototype02#5679356036822986818

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopEuropeanStyleKitchen201102#5679345657939212162

Good luck, and let me know if I can answer any questions.

(If you can get a copy of the above mentioned article, do so ... it
covers using this principle in many more styles than what I show above)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop