New and Improved table design

"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<SHIcc.4525$%[email protected]>...
> Chance,
>
> Your ASCII art isn't coming thru. Make a drawing or take pictures of your
> mock-up and post them to a.b.p.w along with your questions and I'm sure
> you'll get some better responses.
>
> Bob S.


Thank you, Bob. I'm not sure why the ascii art isn't coming through. I
whipped up a quick partial model here:

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/[email protected]/detail?.dir=/acc6&.dnm=cbbc.jpg

I used different colors just for illustration.

If the link does not work, I'll post it somewhere else. Last I
checked abpw had a bunch of porn. I'd rather not see that at work.

-Chance Casey

alexy <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Chance Casey) wrote:
>
> >
> >If I match the edges well enough and use good glue technique, I would
> >think the legs would be pretty darn sturdy for a dining table. Does
> >this sound reasonable?
> My guess is that without an apron or stretchers, or at least corner
> blocks, the table will be pretty wobbly. Looking at the web page you
> posted, am I correct that the legs will stand proud of the surface of
> the table? Interesting design idea, and I like if for other uses. But
> for a dining table (I assume that is the use for a 72x48 table)? What
> happens the first time someone puts a pitcher or dish of hot food or
> their glass half-way on the leg?
> >

Yes, 1" proud - and simply to beef up the joint. My wife also pointed
out that it could be functionally problematic for dining. So this may
be bad all the way around. Thanks for the advice on it being wobbly.
That's something I really don't have a feel for yet, and it seems like
a subjective judgement. It was also my main concern. I guess if I
really want this 'top and leg ONLY' look, I'm resigned to getting a
large piece of steel custom made. That's probably not going to be
cheap.

-chance

Chance,

Ok, I see what you're trying to do now. I would suggest you may want to
consider a slightly angled, wedged tenon joint.
http://alanturnerfurnituremaker.com/portfolio/hearth/wedge.html

This will allow the top of the leg to be flush with the tabletop and you
could use a contrasting wood for the wedge to showoff the joinery. I would
slightly angle of the whole leg (1° to 5° max) to help reduce any chance of
the table becoming wobbly or you could design in a corbel

http://www.idahoforest.com/components/images/Full_Corbel.jpg
http://www.crestwooddesign.com/images/CORBEL.jpg

or corner aprons to help provide leg support and not have an apron or
trestle design.
http://www.tablelegs.com/lgimages/cornerapron.jpg

Check out Doug Stowes web site and his book about designing tables - "Making
elegant Custom Tables". He has some excellent ideas (www.dougstowe.com)
that may spark an idea or two.

Here's some more ideas:
http://www.fogia.com/english/sidor/sortiment/bord_skap/albertmatbord_fakta.htm
http://www.finefurnituremaker.com/images/furniture/casdrgweblarge.jpg
http://www.finefurnituremaker.com/images/furniture/cassdeliveryweblarge.jpg
http://www.finefurnituremaker.com/images/furniture/blacktableweblarge3.jpg
http://www.finefurnituremaker.com/images/furniture/Maple&SycamoreTable1x1.jpg


Keep pushing on that envelope....

Bob S.


>
>
> Thank you, Bob. I'm not sure why the ascii art isn't coming through. I
> whipped up a quick partial model here:
>
>
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/[email protected]/detail?.dir=/acc6&.dnm=cbbc.jpg
>
> I used different colors just for illustration.
>
> If the link does not work, I'll post it somewhere else. Last I
> checked abpw had a bunch of porn. I'd rather not see that at work.
>
> -Chance Casey

Chance,

Your ASCII art isn't coming thru. Make a drawing or take pictures of your
mock-up and post them to a.b.p.w along with your questions and I'm sure
you'll get some better responses.

Bob S.

[email protected] (Chance Casey) wrote:

>
>If I match the edges well enough and use good glue technique, I would
>think the legs would be pretty darn sturdy for a dining table. Does
>this sound reasonable?
My guess is that without an apron or stretchers, or at least corner
blocks, the table will be pretty wobbly. Looking at the web page you
posted, am I correct that the legs will stand proud of the surface of
the table? Interesting design idea, and I like if for other uses. But
for a dining table (I assume that is the use for a 72x48 table)? What
happens the first time someone puts a pitcher or dish of hot food or
their glass half-way on the leg?
>
>The final issue is movement - namely the top planks 'wanting' to
>expand/contract (tangentially) as much as .10" more than the legs
>(radially) if they are both plainsawn. I don't know if I can negate
>these or not.Even if the glue holds, it might cause a split in the top
>plank somewhere. Applying enough tensile force to stretch a 3" plank
>by .10" seems like enough to split it to me, but that's based on
>totally uninformed guessing, not hard calculations - which I'd be
>interested in learning how to do if someone could point me to a good
>book with the relevent engineering education in it. Also, the legs
>will tangentially expand/contract against the dado joints, but with
>this design, that movement would only be about .03" unrestricted, as
>it's 1" of wood thickness in this plane as opposed to 3", so I "think"
>this wouldn't be a problem.
I'd GUESS no problem with expansion. The only cross-grain situations
you have (IF I interpreted the drawing correctly) are thickness of top
versus length of leg (width of dado) and thickness of wood between the
dados versus length of the top. Similar amounts of cross-grain in
every M&T joint.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[email protected] (Chance Casey) wrote in message news:
>
> Thank you, Bob. I'm not sure why the ascii art isn't coming through. I
> whipped up a quick partial model here:
>
> http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/[email protected]/detail?.dir=/acc6&.dnm=cbbc.jpg
>
> I used different colors just for illustration.
>
> If the link does not work, I'll post it somewhere else. Last I
> checked abpw had a bunch of porn. I'd rather not see that at work.
>
> -Chance Casey

i understand what you are proposing (I think)...I'm skeptical. It's
not so much the leg detail, but whether your big 4 ' x 6' relatively
thin (for its size) solid wood top with no apron or strongback design
will stay anything like flat. Not saying it will fall apart, just get
a little too cupped or twisted to really be right. IMO, a minimalist
design wants to be crisp and flat: so a top veneered over something
truly flat and stiff like torsion box or maybe 1 inch ply. Or else
stick with solid wood, but maybe thicker, and using quartersawn
material. As for the leg design, seems interesting. Not much glue
surface and I would guess prone to levering open joints in top if
someone kicks a leg or pulls it across the floor. There's a reason why
tables have aprons and strestchers...but given enough extra effort, I
bet you could make it work...Not sure I understand your engineering
questions--couldn't answer them anyway--but a truly great book is
"Understanding Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley.

Perhaps it is me but this has to be one of the most boring posts I have ever
read . You seem to think people understand what you are talking about . The
old addage a picture is worth a thousand words seems in order you could
either post pictures or plans on either the woodworking binaries newsgroup
or perhaps a website....mjh

--

http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Chance Casey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I adjusted the table dimensions to severely minimize sag, but
> still want to go for that stretcherless, trestleless, "minimalist"
> look. Using red oak, will edge join (maybe w/ biscuits, maybe not) 16
> 3"x1"x72" planks for a 72x48x1 top. If I join these right and true,
> the top itself should be sufficiently sturdy of it's own accord for
> dining table purposes (the wood is about 80 pounds, I tested 280
> pounds on the sagulator and still get less than 'visible' sag, with
> legs at the very corners. That seemed like not enough sag to be
> anywhere near failure, ihmo. Anything really wrong with that logic?
>
> Even so, if we could assume for a moment I could design a such a top,
> I would like to place the legs about 6" from each corner. Each leg
> will be 3 1x3's laminated together. Since I'm going for no stretchers
> or trestles, I have the following idea for joining the legs, which is
> kind of a dado/through tenon hybrid:
>
> top view: long side x-section: short side x-section:
> (long side) |-----------| |------------|
> |-------------- | | | |
> | |---| |---| | |
> | -------|| ||------- ---|| ||------
> |----+++++++--- || || || ||
> | +++++++ -------|| ||------- ---|| ||------
> | +++++++ |---| |---| | |
> |----+++++++--- | | | |
> | | |
> | | |
> |-------------- | |
>
> After laminating the legs into the 3x3 dimension, I'll make 2 1"x1"
> dadoes, 1" from the top. The table top plank which this leg is
> attached to will actually be 3 planks, one between the legs, and one
> between each of the legs and the end of the top. So, the top will
> actually be assembled with 2 of the planks being shorter, so it
> appears to have 4 notches. The legs will go into these notches, with
> one dado facing the end of the short plank. Then the "really" short
> plank will go with it's end into the other dado, and it's edges
> matching the surrounding 2 planks.
>
> If I match the edges well enough and use good glue technique, I would
> think the legs would be pretty darn sturdy for a dining table. Does
> this sound reasonable?
>
> The final issue is movement - namely the top planks 'wanting' to
> expand/contract (tangentially) as much as .10" more than the legs
> (radially) if they are both plainsawn. I don't know if I can negate
> these or not.Even if the glue holds, it might cause a split in the top
> plank somewhere. Applying enough tensile force to stretch a 3" plank
> by .10" seems like enough to split it to me, but that's based on
> totally uninformed guessing, not hard calculations - which I'd be
> interested in learning how to do if someone could point me to a good
> book with the relevent engineering education in it. Also, the legs
> will tangentially expand/contract against the dado joints, but with
> this design, that movement would only be about .03" unrestricted, as
> it's 1" of wood thickness in this plane as opposed to 3", so I "think"
> this wouldn't be a problem.
>
> -Chance Casey

On 7 Apr 2004 18:46:17 -0700, [email protected] (Chance Casey)
wrote:

>alexy <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Chance Casey) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >If I match the edges well enough and use good glue technique, I would
>> >think the legs would be pretty darn sturdy for a dining table. Does
>> >this sound reasonable?
>> My guess is that without an apron or stretchers, or at least corner
>> blocks, the table will be pretty wobbly. Looking at the web page you
>> posted, am I correct that the legs will stand proud of the surface of
>> the table? Interesting design idea, and I like if for other uses. But
>> for a dining table (I assume that is the use for a 72x48 table)? What
>> happens the first time someone puts a pitcher or dish of hot food or
>> their glass half-way on the leg?
>> >
>
>Yes, 1" proud - and simply to beef up the joint. My wife also pointed
>out that it could be functionally problematic for dining. So this may
>be bad all the way around. Thanks for the advice on it being wobbly.
>That's something I really don't have a feel for yet, and it seems like
>a subjective judgement. It was also my main concern. I guess if I
>really want this 'top and leg ONLY' look, I'm resigned to getting a
>large piece of steel custom made. That's probably not going to be
>cheap.
>
>-chance
You could probably make a stiffening frame of wood that was in from
the edges and wouldn't be visible from ordinary viewing heights.
Children palying on the floor will see it, but they will have other
concerns and probably won't complain.


Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
- Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"