This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
I'm not just being anal.
I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and went
to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a Jointer, just
a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want it planed,
perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look when I picked
it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously) checking it over. I
just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and there's only one or two
faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill marks, another 3 or 4 with
divots from not being flattened enough. Then there's the one that you almost
can't tell the jointed face from the un-jointed face. The edges don't look
bad, except for one with a bad split.
Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
questionable in a couple of cases.
Bill Stock wrote:
>
> I thought the sequence was Joint Face, Joint Edge, Plane opposite face and
> Rip opposite Edge. I didn't realize I had to Plane the first Face again.
Joint face one so that it's stable against the bottom of the planer.
Plane face two flat.
Flip board and plane face one flat using face two as the reference, if
possible. Sometimes, there isn't enough wood to get two perfect faces.
The imperfect face can be used where it dosen't show. Plan ahead to
get the face you want flat if it looks like you can't have both.
Edge joint.
Rip to width.
"Bill Stock" wrote in message
> Just to clarify, I didn't actually tell the mill I wanted S2S, I told them
I
> wanted my lumber jointed on 1 Face and 1 Edge. I only used the S2S term
> here. The mill was actually telling one guy they would process his lumber
as
> S3S, which I assume actually meant jointed and planed.
"S3S" usually equates to "S2S1E" - surfaced two faces and 1 edge ... which
would be a excellent choice for you/someone with no jointer, and with a
planer and table saw.
... but that S3S designation could vary according to lumber type and region.
I've bought cedar as S3S where it was one surface faced and two edges
straight line ripped.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
> Joint face one so that it's stable against the bottom of the planer.
<snip>
This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first place.
From his description, including the blurb "They seemed a little surprised
that I didn't want it planed", it appears that what happened is the yard
gave him exactly what he asked for ... rough lumber, run over a jointer.
Totally usele$$ for all practical purposes ... they're probably still
scratching their heads on that one.
What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way he
can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to plane
for the desired thickness.
It is really very simple when everyone involved in the transaction speaks
the same language. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:55:40 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
: <[email protected]> wrote:
: <snipped for sanitary purposes>
:>: Now, let's just cut to the chase. Rather than dignify any further responses
:>: from you with replies, lets just say you are still the dickhead you were
:>: back when ostriches were from Australia, so, once again, go fuck yourself.
:>
:>
:>What are you, thirteen?
:>
:>
:> -- Andy Barssus continue to make assumptions untill
: Let us assume for a moment that there is a governing body that is in
: the position to adjudicate in such matters.
: Let us further assume that their name is The National Hardwood Lumber
: Association.
: Let us continue to make assumptions to the point where we have to get
: into our pockets and buy their manual - as I have - which says thus:
: "S2S stands for surfaced two sides and means that the two wider faces
: of the lumber (front and back) are planed smooth. The edges will still
: be rough.
Notice the word "planed" above when you typed it? Do you
know what it means? It means "run through a planer".
It does not mean "run over a jointer". There's a different
word for that. Guess what it is.
: Then, let us back away from our now not needed assumptions and ask
: this question:
: "What the fuck are you talking about?"
I guess you have trouble reading and understanding as well.
You and Swingman might want to hire a tutor.
: You used to be such a nice little fellow.
I haven't been little for quite some time, but I am nice.
You're condescending and pompous, apparently, at
least from your recent posts.
-- Andy Barss
P.S. *Very* witty thing up there, with the
mispelling of my name. Kudos! I mean, really,
really well-done.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
: "Tom Watson" wrote in message
:> Then, let us back away from our now not needed assumptions and ask
:> this question:
:>
:> "What the fuck are you talking about?"
: Part of the problem here is pathetically obvious ... the misconception that
: the art of buying lumber can be learned from a Google search.
Setting aside your being persistently dense, and using epithets like a
snotty preteen... if what you're talking about here (and it's not terribly clear)
is my and others' reference to standard definitions of what e.g., S2S means:
no one was talking about the 'art' of anything
several people were talking about your erroneous claim that
S2S milling involves (face) jointing, and repeatedly pointing
out not only that you were wrong, but that you could easily verify
THAT you were wrong by consulting the very standards
you claimed (wrongly) that you knew the definition of.
Ignorance is excusable. When various people pointed out that
you were wrong, and did so very politely, the grown-up response
would have been to thank them for the clarification. Instead you
hurl invective, tell people to f*ck themselves, and seem to get off on
palling up with Tom Watson and acting like Crabbe and Goyle.
Ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance is a sign of a closed mind.
Willful ignorance and repeated insults directed at people trying
to help you is a sign of a mental disturbance. You might want to
see a therapist for some help.
-- Andy Barss
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
> several people were talking about your erroneous claim that
> S2S milling involves (face) jointing, and repeatedly pointing
> out not only that you were wrong, but that you could easily verify
> THAT you were wrong by consulting the very standards
> you claimed (wrongly) that you knew the definition of.
"Swingman" wrote in message:
>"S2S lumber is, by definition, surfaced (planed) on two
> faces and both edges are rough."
"Swingman" wrote in message:
> What you apear to be missing is that "jointing", as the term has been used
> in this thread, is not part of the process of producing SxS hardwood
lumber
> ... "planing" and/or SLR (straight line rip) is.
Try again ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:55:40 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snipped for sanitary purposes>
>: Now, let's just cut to the chase. Rather than dignify any further responses
>: from you with replies, lets just say you are still the dickhead you were
>: back when ostriches were from Australia, so, once again, go fuck yourself.
>
>
>What are you, thirteen?
>
>
> -- Andy Barssus continue to make assumptions untill
Let us assume for a moment that there is a governing body that is in
the position to adjudicate in such matters.
Let us further assume that their name is The National Hardwood Lumber
Association.
Let us continue to make assumptions to the point where we have to get
into our pockets and buy their manual - as I have - which says thus:
"S2S stands for surfaced two sides and means that the two wider faces
of the lumber (front and back) are planed smooth. The edges will still
be rough.
S4S stands for surfaces four sides and is the same as S2S plus the
edges are straight and parallel.
SLR1E stands for straight-line ripped one edge, meaning that one side
is straight the other will still be rough. S4S requires S2S and
SLR1E."
Then, let us back away from our now not needed assumptions and ask
this question:
"What the fuck are you talking about?"
You used to be such a nice little fellow.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> Then, let us back away from our now not needed assumptions and ask
> this question:
>
> "What the fuck are you talking about?"
Part of the problem here is pathetically obvious ... the misconception that
the art of buying lumber can be learned from a Google search.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
Bill Stock wrote:
> This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
> I'm not just being anal.
>
> I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and went
> to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a Jointer, just
> a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want it planed,
> perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look when I picked
> it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously) checking it over. I
> just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and there's only one or two
> faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill marks, another 3 or 4 with
> divots from not being flattened enough. Then there's the one that you almost
> can't tell the jointed face from the un-jointed face. The edges don't look
> bad, except for one with a bad split.
>
> Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
> assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
> know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
> sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
> questionable in a couple of cases.
S2S is surfaced two sides, so you're not on the same page there...
I'm certainly not surprised they were suprised as it makes very little
sense to joint an edge before you have flat and parallel surfaces as
they're not going to be of much use one you surface a side and plane
it.
In reality, you at least should have had them at least do 1S before
doing any edges, then you could plane to thickness having a smooth
surface to start from. You really should do that to start with anyway
to get the two surface faces parallel to each other.
On Nov 11, 7:43 am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
<snip>
You're right, Doug, and have been right throughout this thread. That
said, I think it's time to move on.
JP
"George" wrote in message
> Neat thing about standards is they're published. S1S, S2S, S1E, _S2S1E_
and
> so forth are all accepted standards.
> www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch05.pdf
>"Jointed" is not in the nomenclature.
You are indeed correct ... "JTD" designates "jointed" stock, but refers to
"finger jointed", or otherwise joined stock, not in the sense it is being
used/misused in this thread.
> Not that your yard (wo)man will comprehend, of course. At
> least one poster in this thread is adamantly ignorant of the meaning....
No shit!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"B A R R Y" wrote in message
>
>> Joint face one so that it's stable against the bottom of the planer.
>
><snip>
>
>This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
>professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first place.
Which is why he wanted the lumber yard to joint it...
>
>From his description, including the blurb "They seemed a little surprised
>that I didn't want it planed", it appears that what happened is the yard
>gave him exactly what he asked for ... rough lumber, run over a jointer.
>
>Totally usele$$ for all practical purposes ... they're probably still
>scratching their heads on that one.
How do you figure that's useless? If he has a planer, and doesn't have a
jointer, then that's exactly what he'd want: jointed, but not planed.
>
>What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way he
>can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to plane
>for the desired thickness.
Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying that
it is to be jointed *too*, what he's going to get from most lumberyards is
wood that's been planed two sides and straight-line ripped one edge, but not
jointed anywhere.
>
>It is really very simple when everyone involved in the transaction speaks
>the same language. ;)
Quite so -- thus the importance of specifying "jointed" if that's what you
need.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:17:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As you see, some go by mantra, some by sense in the order of business.
>>Personal preference is to get a straight edge to trim to, so I can have a
>>more accurate cut plan and match my material list right away. Can be chalk
>>line/bandsaw or jointer on coarse deep cut.
>
>Fine so far... but next, we disagree.
>
>>Then the rip on the tablesaw to
>>clear defects like wane or slash knots, sometimes reduce a crowned board to
>>two narrower pieces which will give full thickness after planing.
>
>If the board isn't pretty close to flat already, you're running a significant
>risk of binding and kickback by ripping on a tablesaw. Better to use a bandsaw
>for this step if the board hasn't been face-jointed yet.
Yes. Definitely.
"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Stock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
>> I'm not just being anal.
>>
>> I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and
>> went to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a
>> Jointer, just a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want
>> it planed, perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look
>> when I picked it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously)
>> checking it over. I just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and
>> there's only one or two faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill
>> marks, another 3 or 4 with divots from not being flattened enough. Then
>> there's the one that you almost can't tell the jointed face from the
>> un-jointed face. The edges don't look bad, except for one with a bad
>> split.
>>
>> Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
>> assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
>> know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
>> sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
>> questionable in a couple of cases.
>>
> You would never edge plane without first face planing; you would just have
> to do it over again. S2S refers only to planing, not jointing.
Thanks, I thought the two sides referred to the Edge and the Face.
> Edge jointing will always be flat and smooth. Face jointing might not be.
> It is easier to plane than to joint, so you can just joint enough to be
> sure the face is straight and will be stable in the planer.
Yes, edges look good, faces not so much. I guess the varying quality depends
on the original "quality" of the board.
I thought the sequence was Joint Face, Joint Edge, Plane opposite face and
Rip opposite Edge. I didn't realize I had to Plane the first Face again.
"George Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:54:04 -0500, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> The normal procedure should be face joint, then plane, then joint one
> edge with reference to one of the flat faces, then rip to get the last
> edge parallel to the other and perpendicular to a face.
>
> At least that's how I do it. It's been working for me.
OK, I thought it was Face Joint, Edge Joint, Plane, Rip. But I've seen a few
variations.
> So when I read your posting, I assumed you meant you simply wanted
> them to face joint one face, you'd do the planing to thickness. If
> that face that was jointed had "divots" or mill marks remaining, it's
> likely that it's flat enough to go into the planer. You'd just have
> to make sure to flip it over and plane that face too.
That's what I'm hoping, but we'll see.
> If what you did was have them joint a face, you *could* joint an edge
> perpendicular to that face, but it may or may not get tearout,
> depending on the direction of the grain to that single flat face.
>
> So precisely what'd you ask them to do?
They Jointed a Face and an Edge. This is what my buddy says he gets done,
but he uses a different supplier and has his own jointer.
> BTW, sometimes if the lumber is naturally "flat" you might be able to
> get away with using the planer only. But that's not the "recommended"
> procedure.
I was wondering about this, most of the boards in the pile looked pretty
flat and straight.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bill Stock" wrote in message
>
> Your problem appears to be is one of not thoroughly understanding industry
> terminology.
>
> S2S lumber is, by definition, surfaced (planed) on two faces and both
> edges
> are rough.
Just to clarify, I didn't actually tell the mill I wanted S2S, I told them I
wanted my lumber jointed on 1 Face and 1 Edge. I only used the S2S term
here. The mill was actually telling one guy they would process his lumber as
S3S, which I assume actually meant jointed and planed.
> Not trying to be a smartass, but you'll have a better experience next time
> if you just tell them your expectations/what you want, instead of using
> terminology without a full understanding of the definition.
Not a problem, if I had a thin skin I wouldn't post here.
Thanks to Barry, Toller, Doug and George M for the advice.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 23:10:40 -0500, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"George Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:54:04 -0500, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The normal procedure should be face joint, then plane, then joint one
>> edge with reference to one of the flat faces, then rip to get the last
>> edge parallel to the other and perpendicular to a face.
>>
>> At least that's how I do it. It's been working for me.
>
>OK, I thought it was Face Joint, Edge Joint, Plane, Rip. But I've seen a few
>variations.
Yeah, that can work. Heck, I've probably done it. But if you joint
an edge right away, you *might* have to joint your edge against the
grain.
>
>> So when I read your posting, I assumed you meant you simply wanted
>> them to face joint one face, you'd do the planing to thickness. If
>> that face that was jointed had "divots" or mill marks remaining, it's
>> likely that it's flat enough to go into the planer. You'd just have
>> to make sure to flip it over and plane that face too.
>
>That's what I'm hoping, but we'll see.
>
>> If what you did was have them joint a face, you *could* joint an edge
>> perpendicular to that face, but it may or may not get tearout,
>> depending on the direction of the grain to that single flat face.
>>
>> So precisely what'd you ask them to do?
>
>They Jointed a Face and an Edge. This is what my buddy says he gets done,
>but he uses a different supplier and has his own jointer.
This is good to ask for when you don't own a jointer but do own a TS
and a planer. Good idea.
>
>> BTW, sometimes if the lumber is naturally "flat" you might be able to
>> get away with using the planer only. But that's not the "recommended"
>> procedure.
>
>I was wondering about this, most of the boards in the pile looked pretty
>flat and straight.
The bed I built for wifey and I was made exactly that way. The size
of the planks exceeded the width of my jointer, but not the width I
could plane. I took a long look at the planks and decided that if I
was careful I could get away with using planer only. It worked that
time, but won't always. Remember, the planer has to press the wood to
the bed to get 'er to move through. That much pressure can
temporarily flatten it yet let it spring back to it's formerly warped
state (cup, twist, ect.) In this case, not only was the wood
naturally pretty flat, it was 2 inches thick. My lunchbox probably
can't flatten that no matter what.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have a planer. No jointer. I buy all my wood rough. In no way is a
>jointer
> a necessary tool. If you just want one, fine but I can't see having one
> myself. I doubt I ever will.
All those fools who own 'em are wrong, I see.
Get one, it'll save a lot of time. If you're a process over product, sweat
on!
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:54:04 -0500, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
>I'm not just being anal.
>
>I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and went
>to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a Jointer, just
>a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want it planed,
>perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look when I picked
>it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously) checking it over. I
>just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and there's only one or two
>faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill marks, another 3 or 4 with
>divots from not being flattened enough. Then there's the one that you almost
>can't tell the jointed face from the un-jointed face. The edges don't look
>bad, except for one with a bad split.
>
>Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
>assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
>know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
>sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
>questionable in a couple of cases.
>
The normal procedure should be face joint, then plane, then joint one
edge with reference to one of the flat faces, then rip to get the last
edge parallel to the other and perpendicular to a face.
At least that's how I do it. It's been working for me.
So when I read your posting, I assumed you meant you simply wanted
them to face joint one face, you'd do the planing to thickness. If
that face that was jointed had "divots" or mill marks remaining, it's
likely that it's flat enough to go into the planer. You'd just have
to make sure to flip it over and plane that face too.
If what you did was have them joint a face, you *could* joint an edge
perpendicular to that face, but it may or may not get tearout,
depending on the direction of the grain to that single flat face.
So precisely what'd you ask them to do?
BTW, sometimes if the lumber is naturally "flat" you might be able to
get away with using the planer only. But that's not the "recommended"
procedure.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>> >This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
>> >professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first place.
>>
>> Which is why he wanted the lumber yard to joint it...
>
>Not necessary to specify when ordering surfaced lumber.
Sorry, but that's not correct. Specifying surfaced lumber will get you
something that has been planed, but not jointed. If you want it jointed, it
*is* necessary to say so.
>
>> >From his description, including the blurb "They seemed a little surprised
>> >that I didn't want it planed", it appears that what happened is the yard
>> >gave him exactly what he asked for ... rough lumber, run over a jointer.
>> >
>> >Totally usele$$ for all practical purposes ... they're probably still
>> >scratching their heads on that one.
>>
>> How do you figure that's useless? If he has a planer, and doesn't have a
>> jointer, then that's exactly what he'd want: jointed, but not planed.
>
>See above ...
See above. You have it backwards. Normal procedure at a lumberyard is that
they will *plane* it. If you want it jointed, you need to specify that.
>
>> >
>> >What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way
>he
>> >can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to
>plane
>> >for the desired thickness.
>>
>> Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
>that
>> it is to be jointed *too*, what he's going to get from most lumberyards is
>> wood that's been planed two sides and straight-line ripped one edge, but
>not
>> jointed anywhere.
>
>You obviously don't buy much lumber ... again, see first above!
More than you, apparently, or at least I pay more attention to what I'm
buying. Again... see first above!!
>
>> >It is really very simple when everyone involved in the transaction speaks
>> >the same language. ;)
>>
>> Quite so -- thus the importance of specifying "jointed" if that's what you
>> need.
>
>Learn the proper terminology and none of this crap, and particularly your
>pedantic bullshit , is necessary.
Speaking of bullshit ... You're not in much of a position to be criticising me
for my use of terminology, when I'm using it correctly and *you* have it
backwards. S2S means it's been *planed* on two sides. Not jointed.
You can learn the proper terminology here:
http://www.theworkbench.com/guide.php
Scroll down to the bottom, to the list of "Lumber Grading Terms".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>...seem to get off on
>palling up with Tom Watson and acting like Crabbe and Goyle.
>
A literary reference.
And on exactly the level I would have expected.
Very impressive, Andy.
(if you speak with tongue in cheek but you have a sharp tongue, you
run the risk of doing yourself an injury)
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <eMl4h.100115$E67.99079@clgrps13>, "efgh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Bill Stock" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, I didn't actually tell the mill I wanted S2S, I told
>>>> them
>>>I
>>>> wanted my lumber jointed on 1 Face and 1 Edge. I only used the S2S term
>>>> here. The mill was actually telling one guy they would process his
>>>> lumber
>>>>as S3S, which I assume actually meant jointed and planed.
>>>
>>>"S3S" usually equates to "S2S1E" - surfaced two faces and 1 edge ... which
>>
>> which means *planed* two faces, not *jointed*.
>>
>>>would be a excellent choice for you/someone with no jointer, and with a
>>>planer and table saw.
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense at all. If he has no jointer, but he does have
>> a planer and a table saw, then the last thing he wants to buy is wood that
>> hasn't been jointed (and therefore still needs to be). He should be buying
>> exactly what he asked the lumberyard for: jointed one face and one edge.
>> He can then use his table saw and planer to surface the other edge and face.
>This thread has gone on too long arguing over interpretations.
Sorry, but what do you mean by "arguing over interpretations"? What's to
interpret about "jointed"? Either stock has been jointed straight and flat, or
it has not. S2S lumber is in the latter category.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I have a planer. No jointer. I buy all my wood rough. In no way is a
> >jointer
> > a necessary tool. If you just want one, fine but I can't see having one
> > myself. I doubt I ever will.
>
> All those fools who own 'em are wrong, I see.
Fools owning tools is wrong, I agree. They may well hurt themselves.
>
> Get one, it'll save a lot of time.
Should justify it's existance in about 2050. I have better things to do with
my money.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"George" wrote in message
>
>> Neat thing about standards is they're published. S1S, S2S, S1E, _S2S1E_
>and
>> so forth are all accepted standards.
>
>> www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch05.pdf
>
>>"Jointed" is not in the nomenclature.
>
>You are indeed correct ... "JTD" designates "jointed" stock, but refers to
>"finger jointed", or otherwise joined stock, not in the sense it is being
>used/misused in this thread.
>
>> Not that your yard (wo)man will comprehend, of course. At
>> least one poster in this thread is adamantly ignorant of the meaning....
>
>No shit!
>
You still haven't figured out which one of us it is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> S4S is used as a designation in softwood rendering and produces
> dimension lumber, such as 2x4 and 2x6 etc.
Just to add to that ... some hardwood dealers sell hardwoods S4S to those
willing to pay the generally high price so as not to have to mill it
themselves, as well as S4S hardwoods is all the BORG's sell in their
generally meager hardwood inventory.
> When I was ordering a lot of hardwood lumber for my shop I would buy
> it skip planed to 13/16" with one face flat and an edge done SLR1E.
A valuable practice for a man who has learned the art of buying hardwoods.
> This gave me a reference edge for the table saw and a reference for
> the planing. I didn't want the rough planers that the yard used to
> bring my sticks any closer to final thickness because my little
> lunchbox planer, with me paying close attention to grain direction and
> depth of cut, could produce a far nicer face.
Again, just to add to that: Skip planing, or "hit n' miss" as we call it
down here, can also give the hardwood lumber buyer a reasonable idea of the
figure and suitability when choosing wood for a project before he leaves the
lumber yard.
I recommended S2S1E to the OP, because if learns how to pick his lumber,
learning that art with both sides surfaced until he gets the hang of it, he
has much better chance of satisfaction than he had previously received when
ordering his lumber "jointed", including the convenience being able to rip
to width and planing to thickness with the tools he already owned.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
> >professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first place.
>
> Which is why he wanted the lumber yard to joint it...
Not necessary to specify when ordering surfaced lumber.
> >From his description, including the blurb "They seemed a little surprised
> >that I didn't want it planed", it appears that what happened is the yard
> >gave him exactly what he asked for ... rough lumber, run over a jointer.
> >
> >Totally usele$$ for all practical purposes ... they're probably still
> >scratching their heads on that one.
>
> How do you figure that's useless? If he has a planer, and doesn't have a
> jointer, then that's exactly what he'd want: jointed, but not planed.
See above ...
> >
> >What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way
he
> >can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to
plane
> >for the desired thickness.
>
> Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
that
> it is to be jointed *too*, what he's going to get from most lumberyards is
> wood that's been planed two sides and straight-line ripped one edge, but
not
> jointed anywhere.
You obviously don't buy much lumber ... again, see first above!
> >It is really very simple when everyone involved in the transaction speaks
> >the same language. ;)
>
> Quite so -- thus the importance of specifying "jointed" if that's what you
> need.
Learn the proper terminology and none of this crap, and particularly your
pedantic bullshit , is necessary.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>> BTW, I think I just figured out why you've been so confused by this
>> discussion: you've been reading the word "jointed" and assuming that
>everyone
>> who uses it is talking about *edge* jointing only, without realizing that the
>> context makes it quite plain that we've been talking about *face* jointing.
>>
>> See if you like this restatement of my first paragraph here better:
>>
>> .. which is why, if you want wood that's straight and flat, you don't buy
>> wood that's been planed but *not* jointed one face and one edge.
>
>Not necessarily ... But I think I've figured out where _we_ have BOTH been
>confused about the other's contentions.
I'm certainly confused by your repeated insistence that it's not necessary to
specify jointing when ordering S2S lumber. This does not make *any* sense,
because:
a) the standard for S2S does not specify jointing, therefore S2S lumber can be
assumed to not have been jointed;
b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face that is
perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight
and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical
purposes nonexistent;
c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa;
d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally
e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd better
order it that way or he won't get it that way.
>
>Kindly hear me out before snapping back ... thanks.
>
>Looking back over the thread this afternoon trying to figure out where it
>went out of whack, and I believe the below is the pivotal point at which we
>started down a diverging semantics path ... and it is entirely my fault:
Thank you.
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message:
>
>> Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
>> that it is to be jointed *too*, what he's going to get from most
>lumberyards is
>> wood that's been planed two sides and straight-line ripped one edge, but
>> not jointed anywhere.
>
>While I am in _complete_ agreement with the latter half of the above,
>unfortunately my response quoted the entire, while my intent was to take
>some exception to ONLY the following:
>
>> Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
>> that it is to be jointed *too*,
>
>I can see where injudiciously, in haste to reply, my including the latter
>half caused the mistaken notion that I somehow assumed jointing was a
>necessary requirement for SxSxE lumber, which is far from the truth, and
>something I thought I had made quite plain in a definition of surfaced
>lumber in a prior post.
>
>I apologize for the sloppiness.
I never stated, or thought, that you assumed that jointing was a necessary
requirement for the production of SxSxE lumber.
>
>However, I continue to disagree with the blanket assertion that the
>following statement, which started the whole shooting match, is wrong:
>
>> What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way
>he
>> can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to plane
>> for the desired thickness.
>
>On this we shall have to continue to disagree.
Indeed we do disagree on that point. I will continue to maintain that for the
OP, or anyone else who does not own a jointer, to stop ordering jointed lumber
and instead deliberately purchase lumber that still needs to processed with a
tool he does not own, is not a reasonable thing to do. Certainly there are
other ways of preparing straight flat stock without using a jointer (jointer
planes and planer sleds being the most obvious), but about the only way
that's more convenient than using your own jointer is paying someone else to
joint it for you -- which is essentially what the OP was doing by ordering his
lumber jointed.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or
>interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a
>seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.
>
>Krenov can't do it.
Aha! So all those coopered doors were to find some use for the poorer
sticks in his collection.
>What is a poor dorker to do?
>
>The dorker must apply wisdom.
[Snip wisdom; it's all in Tom's post for anyone who missed it]
>You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
>and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is
>buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.
Not hardly. Thanks, Tom. That's a keeper for sure.
Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:36:52 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
> I agree more or less with your statements about removing cup... but I see you
> have done nothing at all about bow...
>
>If you think you're selecting stock that's already completely free of bow,
>next time you head for the lumberyard you should visit the optometrist on the
>way.
Douglas: There is an important point to be made here.
In fact, there are several important wooddorking points to be made.
A cabinet door represents perhaps the greatest challenge that most
dorkers will encounter, at least in the doing of casework - in the
regard of stock selection.
To my way of thinking it is hands above the difficulty of a dovetailed
drawer because that can actually be made out of twisted stock and
still work because the dovetails can boss around the twist.
A door attempts to be a plane. In a theoretical sense it is treated
as a plane. In point of fact, none of them are.
I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last
thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the
theoretical reference of same.
A door is an attempt at a plane that has one edge fixed via hinges to
the opening that it hopes to be planar to.
The hope of the joiner is that the allegedly planar door will
interface with the allegedly planar opening in a pleasing manner that
will allow the closing and catching hardware to work properly, the
hinges to run smoothly, and have the face of the door parallel
throughout to the face of the opening that it is intended to fit into.
He would also insist that the reveal be even and of the appropriate
width on all four edges.
That is an awful lot to ask out of an organic material that changes
its critical dimensions in response to heat, humidity, inherent
internal stresses, variations in coating chemistry and application,
heat gain and loss related to its position in the environment, the
mechanical value of the hinging, the mechanical value of the adhesive,
the geometry of the joinery, the mechanics of the installation
process, etc., etc, etc.
It is, in fact, an impossibility.
There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or
interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a
seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.
Krenov can't do it. Frid can't do it. Marks can't do it. Norm - well,
Norm knows exactly what I'm talking about.
What is a poor dorker to do?
The dorker must apply wisdom.
Wisdom is different from knowledge in that it understands reality
rather than attempting to define or defy it. There are certain areas
of post-Newtonian physics that embrace this but I'm not going to bring
quarks into a discussion of quirks. I wouldn't want to bring a chisel
to a laser fight.
The dorker of course will seek to make his opening as planar as
possible and he will endeavor to make his door as planar as possible.
In order for a frame and panel door to be as nearly planar to the
theoretical reference as possible, there are a number of variables
that must be addressed.
The stock must be as free from the trinity of ugly as possible - that
is, it must not be crooked, it must not be cupped and it must not be
bowed.
YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED,
CUPPED OR BOWED.
The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.
Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways
towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails -
but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.
These modifications to the three uglies are temporary and are not to
be trusted.
A stick that suffers from any of the three uglies does so internally
and a modification of the exterior does not usually go to the heart of
the matter, if I may be a trifle arch.
Essentially and historically the traditional temporary modification of
the triune uglies has been done to prepare the stock for joinery.
Do you think that a rectilinear frame structure can achieve planarity
if the elements that comprise it are full of inherent internal
stresses?
Me neither.
YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.
Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that
it probably borders on bullshit - but there is an interesting kernel
of truth to it.
You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating
the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but,
if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the
inevitable.
The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as
possible.
A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit
of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it
would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow
and still be acceptable.
If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.
THE REVELATION OF THE FOURTH UGLIE.
Twist is the fourth and most significant uglie. In a sense it is the
only uglie that is not able to be compensated for.
Look at your stock first for twist. Jointing will only make the twist
go away temporarily.
If you introduce it into your frame, it will add stress that is
unwanted and extremely detrimental.
You must use winder sticks on your stiles and rails once they have
been cut to rough width and length. Any that are markedly out need to
be used for something else.
ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.
Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.
Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that
demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook
and lack of cup - in that order.
I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been
moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face and
at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run
it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I
can judge crook.
Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician.
He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen
forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is
truly twisted - he must be rejected.
You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is
buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.
Pity.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>
>I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last
>thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the
>theoretical reference of same.
I've been trying to tell you that your stock isn't as flat as you think it
is...
[snip]
>
>YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED,
>CUPPED OR BOWED.
>
>The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.
>
>Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways
>towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails -
>but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.
And careful stock selection by itself doesn't go as far as careful stock
selection followed by careful stock preparation.
>
>YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.
>
>Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that
>it probably borders on bullshit - but there is an interesting kernel
>of truth to it.
Agree on all counts. :-)
>
>You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating
>the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but,
>if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the
>inevitable.
>
>The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as
>possible.
Disagree -- that's a starting point, but it's not the solution. The solution
consists of starting there, and continuing by proper truing of the stock
because it is not in fact perfect.
>
>A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit
>of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it
>would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow
>and still be acceptable.
True -- but a sixty-fourth, or zero, is better still, and not difficult to
achieve.
>
>If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.
[snip description of the evils of twist, with which I entirely agree]
>
>ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.
>
>Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.
>
>Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that
>demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook
>and lack of cup - in that order.
Disagree again, but this time with your choice of words. Replace "lack of"
(which implies zero) with "minimal" and I won't argue, but (again) if you
think that your un-prepped stock truly *lacks* bow, crook, or cup, you need to
stop off at the optometrist's office first on your way to the lumberyard.
>
>I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been
>moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face
If you haven't jointed it, you DON'T have one flat face. It may be close to
flat, it may even be close *enough* to flat to satisfy you, or your customer,
or whomever... but it isn't flat. And yes, I know that even a jointed board
isn't perfectly flat.
>and
>at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run
>it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I
>can judge crook.
I submit that if you get enough springback that you can actually see it... you
should've left that board at the lumberyard.
>
>Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician.
>He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen
>forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is
>truly twisted - he must be rejected.
Interesting way of putting it. I'm afraid I'm not as tolerant of crooked or
bowed politicians -- or lumber -- as you seem to be, but it's an apt simile
just the same, particularly with respect to the twisted ones.
>
>You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
>and perhaps even the general run of dorkers. Unfortunately it is
>buried in a thread that everyone has stopped reading long since.
>
>Pity.
So post it in a separate thread...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Tom Watson wrote:
>
> A cabinet door represents perhaps the greatest challenge that most
> dorkers will encounter, at least in the doing of casework - in the
> regard of stock selection.
>
> To my way of thinking it is hands above the difficulty of a dovetailed
> drawer because that can actually be made out of twisted stock and
> still work because the dovetails can boss around the twist.
>
> A door attempts to be a plane. In a theoretical sense it is treated
> as a plane. In point of fact, none of them are.
>
> I have built and hung upwards of a thousand doors over the last
> thirty- eight years and not one of them was truly planar to the
> theoretical reference of same.
>
> A door is an attempt at a plane that has one edge fixed via hinges to
> the opening that it hopes to be planar to.
>
> The hope of the joiner is that the allegedly planar door will
> interface with the allegedly planar opening in a pleasing manner that
> will allow the closing and catching hardware to work properly, the
> hinges to run smoothly, and have the face of the door parallel
> throughout to the face of the opening that it is intended to fit into.
>
> He would also insist that the reveal be even and of the appropriate
> width on all four edges.
>
> That is an awful lot to ask out of an organic material that changes
> its critical dimensions in response to heat, humidity, inherent
> internal stresses, variations in coating chemistry and application,
> heat gain and loss related to its position in the environment, the
> mechanical value of the hinging, the mechanical value of the adhesive,
> the geometry of the joinery, the mechanics of the installation
> process, etc., etc, etc.
>
> It is, in fact, an impossibility.
>
> There isn't one door in your whole house, be it cabinet, entry or
> interior that is planar to its opening at all times throughout a
> seasonal cycle; yes, even if you live in a conditioned space.
>
> Krenov can't do it. Frid can't do it. Marks can't do it. Norm - well,
> Norm knows exactly what I'm talking about.
>
> What is a poor dorker to do?
>
> The dorker must apply wisdom.
>
> Wisdom is different from knowledge in that it understands reality
> rather than attempting to define or defy it. There are certain areas
> of post-Newtonian physics that embrace this but I'm not going to bring
> quarks into a discussion of quirks. I wouldn't want to bring a chisel
> to a laser fight.
>
> The dorker of course will seek to make his opening as planar as
> possible and he will endeavor to make his door as planar as possible.
>
> In order for a frame and panel door to be as nearly planar to the
> theoretical reference as possible, there are a number of variables
> that must be addressed.
>
> The stock must be as free from the trinity of ugly as possible - that
> is, it must not be crooked, it must not be cupped and it must not be
> bowed.
>
> YOU CAN NOT MAKE GOOD DOORS OUT OF STOCK THAT IS INHERENTLY CROOKED,
> CUPPED OR BOWED.
>
> The above is an absolute and is, therefore, a lie - to a point.
>
> Jointing off the crook and jointing off the bow and cup will go a ways
> towards a straight enough piece of stock to use for stiles and rails -
> but it will not go as far as careful stock selection.
>
> These modifications to the three uglies are temporary and are not to
> be trusted.
>
> A stick that suffers from any of the three uglies does so internally
> and a modification of the exterior does not usually go to the heart of
> the matter, if I may be a trifle arch.
>
> Essentially and historically the traditional temporary modification of
> the triune uglies has been done to prepare the stock for joinery.
>
> Do you think that a rectilinear frame structure can achieve planarity
> if the elements that comprise it are full of inherent internal
> stresses?
>
> Me neither.
>
> YOU MUST BUY YOUR DOOR MATERIAL ALREADY PERFECT.
>
> Well, you already know that this is at least an exaggeration and that
> it probably borders on bullshit - but there is an interesting kernel
> of truth to it.
>
> You see, the surface treatment of the three uglies is like treating
> the symptoms of a disease. You may experience temporary relief but,
> if there is a serious underlying problem, you are only delaying the
> inevitable.
>
> The real solution is to have stock that is as disease free as
> possible.
>
> A thirty inch long door stile that is three inches wide can have a bit
> of cup and it can have maybe a thirty-seconds worth of crook, and it
> would still be acceptable. It can have a thirty-seconds worth of bow
> and still be acceptable.
>
> If it had any twist at all, it would not be acceptable.
>
> THE REVELATION OF THE FOURTH UGLIE.
>
> Twist is the fourth and most significant uglie. In a sense it is the
> only uglie that is not able to be compensated for.
>
> Look at your stock first for twist. Jointing will only make the twist
> go away temporarily.
>
> If you introduce it into your frame, it will add stress that is
> unwanted and extremely detrimental.
>
> You must use winder sticks on your stiles and rails once they have
> been cut to rough width and length. Any that are markedly out need to
> be used for something else.
>
> ALL OF THE UGLIES CAN BE SEEN IN THE ROUGH.
>
> Another exaggeration verging on a lie but still useful.
>
> Your stile and rail stock should be selected from sticks that
> demonstrate the virtues of lack of twist, lack of bow, lack of crook
> and lack of cup - in that order.
>
> I find that the best time to do this is when the sticks have been
> moderately surfaced. To me this means that I have one flat face and
> at least a skip planed second face - having one edge SLR1E lets me run
> it through the saw and see what kind of springback I get - so that I
> can judge crook.
>
> Think of your stile and rail stock as you would your usual politician.
> He can be a little crooked, a bit off plane, bowed a bit by unseen
> forces - and he may still do your bidding adequately - but if he is
> truly twisted - he must be rejected.
>
>
> You know, I think that the above might make a good primer for newbies
> and perhaps even the general run of dorkers.
Thanks for the lesson.
Barry
"George" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > What you apear to be missing is that "jointing", as the term has been
used
> > in this thread, is not part of the process of producing SxS hardwood
> > lumber
> Well, it's certainly unprofitable to state even the obvious to you. As
> earlier, "Jointing" has nothing to do with surfacing terminology.
Hmmm ... seems that I had just clearly stated that. So why the superfulous
crap along with it?
That said, it's good to see that you agree.
>As a
> matter for fact, as many people who have contributed to this thread have
> mentioned, jointing can only be accomplished once there is a flat face to
> reference.
but, you just started this thread. ;)
>The mill edger grabs and compresses the board faces, running it
> through a gang saw at standard widths. The board may still have wane here
> and there, can and does twist, bow and warp after this treatment, which is
> normally performed green. That's why milled lumber is undersized. They
have
> to take away wood to get it flat and straight. They can do one or both
> edges again, as you prefer. You pay for the waste.
No argument whatsoever ...
> The powered method for gaining a reference surface to join to is to employ
a
> Jointer, though a good thickness planer, careful work, and maybe a fiddly
> fussy sled can ultimately get a flat face on most boards. Hand planes can
> get a reasonable face fairly quickly as well, and may be the only choice
for
> wide stock, though only a fool, in my opinion, would surface fully with a
> hand plane when all he has to do is knock off major deviations to allow
the
> table of the planer to bridge the remaining gaps. Used to do a full demo
of
> manual stock preparation every year for every class, and that was enough.
> Concept understood, we all took advantage of technology thereafter.
Again, no argument .. AAMOF, well stated.
> The purpose of a machine is to simplify a task. Those who want to
construct
> secondary fences or transport sleds to join an edge on their tablesaw,
> shaper or router table are certainly welcome to do so, as are those who
> pronounce jointers a waste of money and then brag of LN planes costing
more
> than a good machine. It isn't the project that counts for them, but the
> process.
Again, you're preaching to the choir ... too damn bad you had to start off
with the derogatory bullshit
> If the OP is Of the "expectations" thread is reading, get a jointer first.
> It simplifies everything. Most furniture does not need precisely
> thicknessed wood, note the furniture produced up into the middle of the
> nineteenth century, but it does demand, or at least benefit from a square,
> straight edge. A jointer will get you there faster, whether it's "good
> enough" thicknessing or straight, square edges.
I can't agree with that in it's entirety ... but different strokes. I would
prefer to say that it really depends upon what you do in woodworking that
determines the need for a specific tool, and in what order.
> A planer is primarily for people who do _not_ purchase fully surfaced
> stock,
A planer is primarily used by most woodworkers to dimension to suitable
thickness and provide a suitable surface.
>where it is always wise to know the language before you go ask for
> something. No button at the lumber yard or mill for either Spanish or
> Novice. If you want something, you'll have to learn how to ask, and
you'll
> also have to learn how to check, because the people behind the counter are
> often only as knowledgeable as the words on their computer screens.
Hmmm .. once again, I clearly stated that in my very first post on this
subject. Nice to see that you agree.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:30:39 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tom Watson" wrote in message
>
>> Well, let's just elevate the project a little bit and say I'm out to
>> make a cherry library.
>
><relunctantly snipped>
>
>> The leftover stock is used to make furniture...
>
>ROTFLMAO ... "I've showed you mine, now show me yours!"
>
>You accepting apprentices? Save me a spot!
Your work already shows that you are way beyond apprenticing to
anyone, Swing.
That line about the rest being used to make furniture sounds like more
of a joke than it actually is.
That library would have been bid at FAS prices for maybe 800 bf net.
I pay the same for a thousand bf of #1 Common, (and get free delivery
because I am at a thousand feet, along with the price break that goes
along with) select out the stuff for the job and get to play with the
rest.
The overage is stuff that is too "interesting" to be included in the
process of building casework in an efficient way.
It is damned nice stuff, however, albeit needing more TLC for it to
shine.
These sticks and pieces really need full balls to the wall stock prep
and a jointer is priceless in rendering them into useful stock.
I'd recommend that anyone who is used to buying only FAS and Select
try dropping down a grade. There is a sweet spot in the price/yield
graph that can really work for you.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>> >> The dispute has been over the need to joint S2S lumber to get it flat
>(or
>> >> perceived lack of need, on the part of one particularly condescending,
>> >> arrogant, and completely incorrect loudmouth).
>
>"Swingman" wrote:
>
>> >Wrong again ... the "dispute" has been all along your erroneous
>contention
>> >that you need to specify "jointing".
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>>
>> You still don't get it, do you?
>>
>> The only erroneous contention made in this thread has been your completely
>> wrongheaded (and so far totally unexplained) claim that buying S2S lumber
>> somehow makes it unnecessary to specify that you want it jointed.
>
>What you apear to be missing is that "jointing", as the term has been used
>in this thread, is not part of the process of producing SxS hardwood lumber
>.... "planing" and/or SLR (straight line rip) is.
No, I'm not missing that at all. I understand that clearly. What *you* are
missing is that since jointing is not part of that process, then SxS lumber
still _needs_to_be_jointed_.
>
>And, once again, you do NOT need to specify "jointing" when buying SxS
>lumber.
>
>> I repeat: if you want your lumber jointed, then you need to specify that you
>> want it jointed, otherwise it won't be.
>
>Ahhhh ... now that I DO agree with.
>
Took you long enough -- that's, what, the sixth or seventh time I've said
that?
>Although, it is not normally done and, IME, most hardwood lumber yards won't
>deal with it except at a much higher price, if at all.
Which is exactly why I've been saying all along that if you want it jointed,
it IS necessary to specify that.
>
>Around here a "millwork" will have a jointer, but I wouldn't bet that all
>hardwood lumber dealers or yards will as a matter of course ... and this is
>an area historically known for its hardwood production.
>
>And once more, It is an every day practice that, if you pick your SxSxE
>lumber correctly, you can get by without a jointer ... as the OP as been
>advised now by quite of a few of those with a better grasp of the situation
>than you appear to be.
>
I have a perfectly good grasp of the situation -- but you still haven't
grasped the FACT that S2S lumber is NOT dead flat.
If you realize it's not dead flat, and accept that anyway, fine. I prefer
using lumber that is, and hence I joint mine before using it.
If you think it is dead flat, then you should probably visit an optometrist
before your next trip to the lumberyard.
>While these facts are inarguable, you will no doubt find a way.
You haven't stated any facts yet...
>.... nuff said. Knock yourself out on the subject.
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Group wrote:
[snippola]
>Anyway, TW's info corresponds to my understanding of terms.
And mine, and Andy's. Nobody has been arguing over what the terms mean.
The dispute has been over the need to joint S2S lumber to get it flat (or
perceived lack of need, on the part of one particularly condescending,
arrogant, and completely incorrect loudmouth).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >> The dispute has been over the need to joint S2S lumber to get it flat
(or
> >> perceived lack of need, on the part of one particularly condescending,
> >> arrogant, and completely incorrect loudmouth).
"Swingman" wrote:
> >Wrong again ... the "dispute" has been all along your erroneous
contention
> >that you need to specify "jointing".
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
> You still don't get it, do you?
>
> The only erroneous contention made in this thread has been your completely
> wrongheaded (and so far totally unexplained) claim that buying S2S lumber
> somehow makes it unnecessary to specify that you want it jointed.
What you apear to be missing is that "jointing", as the term has been used
in this thread, is not part of the process of producing SxS hardwood lumber
... "planing" and/or SLR (straight line rip) is.
And, once again, you do NOT need to specify "jointing" when buying SxS
lumber.
> I repeat: if you want your lumber jointed, then you need to specify that
you
> want it jointed, otherwise it won't be.
Ahhhh ... now that I DO agree with.
Although, it is not normally done and, IME, most hardwood lumber yards won't
deal with it except at a much higher price, if at all.
Around here a "millwork" will have a jointer, but I wouldn't bet that all
hardwood lumber dealers or yards will as a matter of course ... and this is
an area historically known for its hardwood production.
And once more, It is an every day practice that, if you pick your SxSxE
lumber correctly, you can get by without a jointer ... as the OP as been
advised now by quite of a few of those with a better grasp of the situation
than you appear to be.
While these facts are inarguable, you will no doubt find a way.
... nuff said. Knock yourself out on the subject.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> >It is usually the case that one of the edges is good enough to be run
> >through the shaper to make the cope and stick. The pieces have not
> >been face jointed because a stile or rail is only about 2-1/4" to 3"
> >wide and with careful stock selection I will have faces whose cup will
> >not exceed that which will be taken out in the sanding process.
>
> I agree more or less with your statements about removing cup... but I see you
> have done nothing at all about bow...
>
Then you must have missed the part about selecting the stock.
Christ, Miller, you'd argue with a fucking stump.
Bow this!
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:48:25 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: Wittgenstein might get close to his game in the Tractatus but much of
>: that is negated in the Blue and Brown.
>
>Been reading Wikipedia, have you? What a learned gent you must be!
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
My copy of The Blue and Brown Books is a Harper Torchbooks paperback
that is so old that the price (yes, I bought it new from the campus
book store) was only $1.95.
I was reading it (along with the Ayer book that I already recommended
to you) for an undergrad Logic course before you were born.
Wikipedia, my ass.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The leftover stock is used to make furniture...
And some dare call you a troll.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Whap!
>>
>>(sound of miller being klownhammered into...i was going to say
>>'insensibility' but that would be redundant, wouldn't it)
>>
>>You need to clear your head.
>>
>>Maybe you should take up a hobby.
>>
>>I hear that woodworking is very relaxing.
>>
>
> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
>
Do we need a time out?
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:01:37 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:23:51 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat, then
>>>either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
>>
>>Might be straight and flat enough, if I select them carefully.
>
>Well, sure, if you're just putting up shelves in the garage. That's not
>exactly woodworking, though, more like home repair.
Well, let's just elevate the project a little bit and say I'm out to
make a cherry library.
I'm going to order up a thousand board feet of #1 Common cherry,
planed flat on one face and skip planed to 3/16" less than the rough
nominal thickness on the other face. One edge will be SLR1E.
It will be a mixed load of 4/4, 5/4 and 6/4.
I use #1 Common because the price point is advantageous and the timber
is actually more interesting than plain vanilla FAS or Select. Also,
I know that I will have a sufficient number of FAS faces in the pile
for those items that require them, mostly molding, which can be pissy
to run in stock with varying hardness and inclusions.
When I break down the pile I'm going to select out the straightest and
most nearly quartersawn stock for my stiles and rails. These benefit
from being made out of sticks that just naturally wants to be straight
and flat.
I'm then going to select out the most interestingly figured wood for
my door and drawer panels, and the wainscoting panels, if they are in
the job.
I plane my stile and rail stock to final thickness and then cut them
to rough lengths. At this point I check the SLR1E edge with a
straightedge and usually find that it is good enough to sit against
the tablesaw fence. I then rip the stiles and rails to an oversized
width and check the freshly ripped edges for straightness.
It is usually the case that one of the edges is good enough to be run
through the shaper to make the cope and stick. The pieces have not
been face jointed because a stile or rail is only about 2-1/4" to 3"
wide and with careful stock selection I will have faces whose cup will
not exceed that which will be taken out in the sanding process.
I take the panel stock and plane it to final thickness and then rough
cut to length. At this point I rip the stock to no greater than four
inches wide and joint both edges.
I test butt the pieces together on a large work table to arrange the
panels into the most pleasing figure and color. I then pair the
panels up, so that a pair of doors will have a balanced look when
sitting next to each other. The most figured panels go in the center
doors and I work my way out from there.
Once I have worked my way through the stiles and rails, the stock for
the worked molding, and the panels, I'll be left with a need for some
fairly wide sticks for the cornice and base. These can be a little
twisty and very slightly cupped because I have the opportunity to boss
them around with clamps, glue, and fasteners that will be hidden when
the project is finished.
The greatest challenge is obviously the panels. I don't flip my faces
in gluing up the panels because I don't want to deal with the
washboarding that this encourages. The panel will either be flat or
will have a gentle cup across its width, which I deal with by running
the panel, or half the panel, if it is too wide, through the planer,
taking very light passes and essentially face jointing the panel.
If there is more than moderate twist, I shim the panel and lightly
pass it through the planer.
This is the only instance of what might properly be called face
jointing in the entire project and it is only done after the panels
have been glued up - the individual sticks have not been face jointed.
The panels are cut to final length and width and the doors are glued
up. The fact that the stiles are oversized in width means that I can
trim off the clamp bruises when the glue up is dry.
The leftover stock is used to make furniture...
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> In article "Swingman" wrote:
> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >
> >> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
> >> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
> >
> >Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
> >raised cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
>
> Pot... kettle... black...
Weak, but proves my point. Thanks!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>> In article "Swingman" wrote:
>> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
>> >> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
>> >
>> >Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
>> >raised cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
>>
>> Pot... kettle... black...
>
>Weak, but proves my point. Thanks!
>
I think the real point that's proven here is that you can't handle it when
anybody disagrees with you -- and I think *that* particular horse has been
beaten enough.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
>> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
>
>Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
>cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
Pot... kettle... black...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Whap!
>
>(sound of miller being klownhammered into...i was going to say
>'insensibility' but that would be redundant, wouldn't it)
>
>You need to clear your head.
>
>Maybe you should take up a hobby.
>
>I hear that woodworking is very relaxing.
>
Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>It is usually the case that one of the edges is good enough to be run
>through the shaper to make the cope and stick. The pieces have not
>been face jointed because a stile or rail is only about 2-1/4" to 3"
>wide and with careful stock selection I will have faces whose cup will
>not exceed that which will be taken out in the sanding process.
I agree more or less with your statements about removing cup... but I see you
have done nothing at all about bow...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
> blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
> awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
> displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.
Did you actually *read* any of it and *think* about it?
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:22:47 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.
>>
>>Which one? :-)
>>
>
>Big Daddy - and he really was a big daddy, wasn't he.
Twenty-one kids, if memory serves.
>
>
>I ripped that cut from the CD and put it on my site so you could
>check it out:
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/onlinestorage/bach.mp3
I'll have a listen to it as soon as I get the right-channel speaker working on
the computer again... thanks.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:06:29 -0600, [email protected] ()
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
>>blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
>>awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
>>displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.
>
>
>Careful with that axe, Eugene.
>
>I made my living as a carpenter and a cabinetmaker.
>
>Swingman builds and sells houses.
>
>I'm pretty sure that Doug Miller is a pimp.
>
>So, you see, you have no more blue in your collar than we.
we? We? WE? I'm glad to see that the 3 of you do have something in
common after all! :) I've no claim to more blue in my collar; In fact,
it could be argued that when it comes to certain other substances, you
guys possess _more_ of it than me. :)
>So, do we pass the Wasserman test?
I hope there's never any reason for me to know that... I would just
advise that if one of you tests positive, the other 2 should probably
get tested as well. :)
(Just for the record, that Wassermann spelled his name with double
'n' at the end. No relation.)
[Please note profusion of :)s indicates humor rather than malice!]
--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - [email protected]
In article <151120062319466166%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
>> blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
>> awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
>> displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.
>
>Did you actually *read* any of it and *think* about it?
That's not required on usenet. :)
--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - [email protected]
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:06:29 -0600, [email protected] ()
wrote:
>
>Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
>blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
>awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
>displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.
Careful with that axe, Eugene.
I made my living as a carpenter and a cabinetmaker.
Swingman builds and sells houses.
I'm pretty sure that Doug Miller is a pimp.
So, you see, you have no more blue in your collar than we.
So, do we pass the Wasserman test?
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
: He does seem to be lacking in the area of semiotics.
And thank goodness. Semiotics is vague twaddle.
: He prolly embraces the math end of symbology without hearkening back
: to the roots of the term.
"Symbology"? I think you think you know what you're talking about, but I
don't think you do.
: I'm guessing that Heidegger's concept of meaning as revelation is not
: one of his usual haunts.
: Wittgenstein might get close to his game in the Tractatus but much of
: that is negated in the Blue and Brown.
Been reading Wikipedia, have you? What a learned gent you must be!
-- Andy Barss
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:32:02 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In Andrew's case it is doubtful whether Ayer would have much effect. The
>prognosis for advance cases of anal rigor mortis, AKA "tightass", whereby
>the convulsing sphincter further increases the detrimental effect of the
>rarified air of academia on a brain embedded that far up, is devastating ...
>as we've just observed.
Dunno about that, Swing.
Andy's a Semanticist and is thus tasked with the study of meaning.
Of course, there are different concepts of meaning.
He does seem to be lacking in the area of semiotics.
He prolly embraces the math end of symbology without hearkening back
to the roots of the term.
I'm guessing that Heidegger's concept of meaning as revelation is not
one of his usual haunts.
Wittgenstein might get close to his game in the Tractatus but much of
that is negated in the Blue and Brown.
One of my favorite dudes from my graduate school days, Maurice
Merleau- Ponty wrote in Le Structure du Comportement about how meaning
is so much a part of perception as to be indistinguishable from it.
I'm pretty sure Andy doesn't jive with that.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Gee, what a great thread! Us poor, ignorant, uneducated, unread
blue-collar working stiff types are cowering in shock and
awe before the searing wit, profound reason, and grand erudition
displayed by the protagonists in this enlightening discussion.
--
A man who throws dirt loses ground.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - [email protected]
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:22:47 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.
>
>Which one? :-)
>
Big Daddy - and he really was a big daddy, wasn't he.
I ripped that cut from the CD and put it on my site so you could
check it out:
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/onlinestorage/bach.mp3
I said Goldberg but meant Brandenburg, and it's from Christopher
Hogwood and The Academy of Ancient Music's recording of Concertos (or
Concerti, as some of us old farts would still have it) 1 - 6.
Enjoy!
BTW - play that sucker as loud as you can stand it.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
: "Doug Miller" wrote in message
:> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
:> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
: Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
: cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
Nonsense. The objections he's raised to your posts, and to
Watson's, are the opposite of
cavilling. They're to the point, objective, and factual.
You, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem
Doug Miller noted for Tom Watson, except
you've been doing it for a longer time, apparently.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >It is usually the case that one of the edges is good enough to be run
>> >through the shaper to make the cope and stick. The pieces have not
>> >been face jointed because a stile or rail is only about 2-1/4" to 3"
>> >wide and with careful stock selection I will have faces whose cup will
>> >not exceed that which will be taken out in the sanding process.
>>
>> I agree more or less with your statements about removing cup... but I see you
>> have done nothing at all about bow...
>>
>
>Then you must have missed the part about selecting the stock.
If you think you're selecting stock that's already completely free of bow,
next time you head for the lumberyard you should visit the optometrist on the
way.
>
>Christ, Miller, you'd argue with a fucking stump.
Guess you're right... I'm arguing with you.
>
>Bow this!
>
You know, Tom, just like you, I miss the old days. I can remember a time
in the distant past when you actually made useful contributions, instead of
insults and personal abuse.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> Well, let's just elevate the project a little bit and say I'm out to
> make a cherry library.
<relunctantly snipped>
> The leftover stock is used to make furniture...
ROTFLMAO ... "I've showed you mine, now show me yours!"
You accepting apprentices? Save me a spot!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> In article "Swingman" wrote:
> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >> In article "Swingman" wrote:
> >> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
> >> >> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
> >> >
> >> >Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
> >> >raised cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
> >>
> >> Pot... kettle... black...
> >
> >Weak, but proves my point. Thanks!
> >
> I think the real point that's proven here is that you can't handle it when
> anybody disagrees with you -- and I think *that* particular horse has been
> beaten enough.
Verb inoperative, or you would get it by now. Go ahead, Doug ... you can
have the last word. LOL
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
---
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>P.S. *Very* witty thing up there, with the
>mispelling of my name. Kudos! I mean, really,
>really well-done.
Once again, you've missed the truth.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> BTW, I think I just figured out why you've been so confused by this
> discussion: you've been reading the word "jointed" and assuming that
everyone
> who uses it is talking about *edge* jointing only, without realizing that
the
> context makes it quite plain that we've been talking about *face*
jointing.
>
> See if you like this restatement of my first paragraph here better:
>
> .. which is why, if you want wood that's straight and flat, you don't buy
> wood that's been planed but *not* jointed one face and one edge.
Not necessarily ... But I think I've figured out where _we_ have BOTH been
confused about the other's contentions.
Kindly hear me out before snapping back ... thanks.
Looking back over the thread this afternoon trying to figure out where it
went out of whack, and I believe the below is the pivotal point at which we
started down a diverging semantics path ... and it is entirely my fault:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message:
> Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
> that it is to be jointed *too*, what he's going to get from most
lumberyards is
> wood that's been planed two sides and straight-line ripped one edge, but
> not jointed anywhere.
While I am in _complete_ agreement with the latter half of the above,
unfortunately my response quoted the entire, while my intent was to take
some exception to ONLY the following:
> Well, no, not quite -- if he orders wood S2S1E without *also* specifying
> that it is to be jointed *too*,
I can see where injudiciously, in haste to reply, my including the latter
half caused the mistaken notion that I somehow assumed jointing was a
necessary requirement for SxSxE lumber, which is far from the truth, and
something I thought I had made quite plain in a definition of surfaced
lumber in a prior post.
I apologize for the sloppiness.
However, I continue to disagree with the blanket assertion that the
following statement, which started the whole shooting match, is wrong:
> What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way
he
> can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to plane
> for the desired thickness.
On this we shall have to continue to disagree.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What you apear to be missing is that "jointing", as the term has been used
> in this thread, is not part of the process of producing SxS hardwood
> lumber
> ... "planing" and/or SLR (straight line rip) is.
>
> And, once again, you do NOT need to specify "jointing" when buying SxS
> lumber.
>
>> I repeat: if you want your lumber jointed, then you need to specify that
> you
>> want it jointed, otherwise it won't be.
>
> Ahhhh ... now that I DO agree with.
>
> Although, it is not normally done and, IME, most hardwood lumber yards
> won't
> deal with it except at a much higher price, if at all.
>
> Around here a "millwork" will have a jointer, but I wouldn't bet that all
> hardwood lumber dealers or yards will as a matter of course ... and this
> is
> an area historically known for its hardwood production.
>
> And once more, It is an every day practice that, if you pick your SxSxE
> lumber correctly, you can get by without a jointer ... as the OP as been
> advised now by quite of a few of those with a better grasp of the
> situation
> than you appear to be.
>
> While these facts are inarguable, you will no doubt find a way.
>
Well, it's certainly unprofitable to state even the obvious to you. As
earlier, "Jointing" has nothing to do with surfacing terminology. As a
matter for fact, as many people who have contributed to this thread have
mentioned, jointing can only be accomplished once there is a flat face to
reference. The mill edger grabs and compresses the board faces, running it
through a gang saw at standard widths. The board may still have wane here
and there, can and does twist, bow and warp after this treatment, which is
normally performed green. That's why milled lumber is undersized. They have
to take away wood to get it flat and straight. They can do one or both
edges again, as you prefer. You pay for the waste.
The powered method for gaining a reference surface to join to is to employ a
Jointer, though a good thickness planer, careful work, and maybe a fiddly
fussy sled can ultimately get a flat face on most boards. Hand planes can
get a reasonable face fairly quickly as well, and may be the only choice for
wide stock, though only a fool, in my opinion, would surface fully with a
hand plane when all he has to do is knock off major deviations to allow the
table of the planer to bridge the remaining gaps. Used to do a full demo of
manual stock preparation every year for every class, and that was enough.
Concept understood, we all took advantage of technology thereafter.
The purpose of a machine is to simplify a task. Those who want to construct
secondary fences or transport sleds to join an edge on their tablesaw,
shaper or router table are certainly welcome to do so, as are those who
pronounce jointers a waste of money and then brag of LN planes costing more
than a good machine. It isn't the project that counts for them, but the
process.
If the OP is Of the "expectations" thread is reading, get a jointer first.
It simplifies everything. Most furniture does not need precisely
thicknessed wood, note the furniture produced up into the middle of the
nineteenth century, but it does demand, or at least benefit from a square,
straight edge. A jointer will get you there faster, whether it's "good
enough" thicknessing or straight, square edges.
A planer is primarily for people who do _not_ purchase fully surfaced
stock, where it is always wise to know the language before you go ask for
something. No button at the lumber yard or mill for either Spanish or
Novice. If you want something, you'll have to learn how to ask, and you'll
also have to learn how to check, because the people behind the counter are
often only as knowledgeable as the words on their computer screens.
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:19:46 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Watson
>
There are more useful nuggets in this post than I've seen here in long
while.
Thank you.
Thanks, Nice to get a wise view point.
Mike M
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:19:46 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:01:37 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:23:51 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat, then
>>>>either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
>>>
>>>Might be straight and flat enough, if I select them carefully.
>>
>>Well, sure, if you're just putting up shelves in the garage. That's not
>>exactly woodworking, though, more like home repair.
>
>
>Well, let's just elevate the project a little bit and say I'm out to
>make a cherry library.
>
>I'm going to order up a thousand board feet of #1 Common cherry,
>planed flat on one face and skip planed to 3/16" less than the rough
>nominal thickness on the other face. One edge will be SLR1E.
>
>It will be a mixed load of 4/4, 5/4 and 6/4.
>
>I use #1 Common because the price point is advantageous and the timber
>is actually more interesting than plain vanilla FAS or Select. Also,
>I know that I will have a sufficient number of FAS faces in the pile
>for those items that require them, mostly molding, which can be pissy
>to run in stock with varying hardness and inclusions.
>
>When I break down the pile I'm going to select out the straightest and
>most nearly quartersawn stock for my stiles and rails. These benefit
>from being made out of sticks that just naturally wants to be straight
>and flat.
>
>I'm then going to select out the most interestingly figured wood for
>my door and drawer panels, and the wainscoting panels, if they are in
>the job.
>
>I plane my stile and rail stock to final thickness and then cut them
>to rough lengths. At this point I check the SLR1E edge with a
>straightedge and usually find that it is good enough to sit against
>the tablesaw fence. I then rip the stiles and rails to an oversized
>width and check the freshly ripped edges for straightness.
>
>It is usually the case that one of the edges is good enough to be run
>through the shaper to make the cope and stick. The pieces have not
>been face jointed because a stile or rail is only about 2-1/4" to 3"
>wide and with careful stock selection I will have faces whose cup will
>not exceed that which will be taken out in the sanding process.
>
>I take the panel stock and plane it to final thickness and then rough
>cut to length. At this point I rip the stock to no greater than four
>inches wide and joint both edges.
>
>I test butt the pieces together on a large work table to arrange the
>panels into the most pleasing figure and color. I then pair the
>panels up, so that a pair of doors will have a balanced look when
>sitting next to each other. The most figured panels go in the center
>doors and I work my way out from there.
>
>Once I have worked my way through the stiles and rails, the stock for
>the worked molding, and the panels, I'll be left with a need for some
>fairly wide sticks for the cornice and base. These can be a little
>twisty and very slightly cupped because I have the opportunity to boss
>them around with clamps, glue, and fasteners that will be hidden when
>the project is finished.
>
>The greatest challenge is obviously the panels. I don't flip my faces
>in gluing up the panels because I don't want to deal with the
>washboarding that this encourages. The panel will either be flat or
>will have a gentle cup across its width, which I deal with by running
>the panel, or half the panel, if it is too wide, through the planer,
>taking very light passes and essentially face jointing the panel.
>
>If there is more than moderate twist, I shim the panel and lightly
>pass it through the planer.
>
>This is the only instance of what might properly be called face
>jointing in the entire project and it is only done after the panels
>have been glued up - the individual sticks have not been face jointed.
>
>The panels are cut to final length and width and the doors are glued
>up. The fact that the stiles are oversized in width means that I can
>trim off the clamp bruises when the glue up is dry.
>
>
>
>The leftover stock is used to make furniture...
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Watson
>
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:13:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>: On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:55:40 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>: <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: <snipped for sanitary purposes>
>
>
>:>: Now, let's just cut to the chase. Rather than dignify any further responses
>:>: from you with replies, lets just say you are still the dickhead you were
>:>: back when ostriches were from Australia, so, once again, go fuck yourself.
>:>
>:>
>:>What are you, thirteen?
>:>
>:>
>:> -- Andy Barssus continue to make assumptions untill
>
>
>: Let us assume for a moment that there is a governing body that is in
>: the position to adjudicate in such matters.
>
>: Let us further assume that their name is The National Hardwood Lumber
>: Association.
>
>: Let us continue to make assumptions to the point where we have to get
>: into our pockets and buy their manual - as I have - which says thus:
>
>
>
>: "S2S stands for surfaced two sides and means that the two wider faces
>: of the lumber (front and back) are planed smooth. The edges will still
>: be rough.
>
>Notice the word "planed" above when you typed it? Do you
>know what it means? It means "run through a planer".
> It does not mean "run over a jointer". There's a different
> word for that. Guess what it is.
>
>
>: Then, let us back away from our now not needed assumptions and ask
>: this question:
>
>: "What the fuck are you talking about?"
>
>
>I guess you have trouble reading and understanding as well.
>You and Swingman might want to hire a tutor.
>
>: You used to be such a nice little fellow.
>
>
>I haven't been little for quite some time, but I am nice.
>
>
>You're condescending and pompous, apparently, at
>least from your recent posts.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
>P.S. *Very* witty thing up there, with the
>mispelling of my name. Kudos! I mean, really,
>really well-done.
Actually, I did not think he was directing this to you. So maybe I'm
confused as well.
Anyway, TW's info corresponds to my understanding of terms.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:04:17 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>>b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face that
>>is
>>perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight
>>and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical
>>purposes nonexistent;
>
> The same can be said for timber that has been jointed.
>
>
>>c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa;
>
>
> Neither can jointed timber be assumed to be straight an fa.
>
> Actually, I'm not so sure about fa.
>
>
>>d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally
>
>
> It should be jointed if it needs jointing.
>
>
>>e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd
>>better
>>order it that way or he won't get it that way.
>
>
> Or he'd better get good at selecting timber.
>
Isn't it the truth. Not to mention, if he's a tablesaw and sled type or one
of the other "alternative" jointing devices. he's going to have to make do
with a bunch of bowed stock from ripping and releasing tension on the saw,
or dedicate a machine to the single operation to get his straight edges back
when prepping stock.
Sort of like having a real jointer.
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:04:17 GMT, (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
> >b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face
that is
> >perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight
> >and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical
> >purposes nonexistent;
>
> The same can be said for timber that has been jointed.
Precisely.
A board "jointed" yesterday may not be considered, for all practical
purposes, "jointed" today ... a decidedly "non-rare", and very common,
circumstance.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:04:17 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I'm certainly confused by your repeated insistence that it's not necessary to
>>specify jointing when ordering S2S lumber. This does not make *any* sense,
>>because:
>>a) the standard for S2S does not specify jointing, therefore S2S lumber can be
>
>>assumed to not have been jointed;
>
>Correct. To order jointing you specify J1S or J2S.
>
>
>>b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face that is
>>perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight
>>and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical
>>purposes nonexistent;
>
>The same can be said for timber that has been jointed.
Guess the hyperbole went over your head, Tom. Of course jointed lumber isn't
perfectly straight and flat either, but it's considerably closer to perfect
than lumber that hasn't been jointed.
>
>
>>c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa;
>
>
>Neither can jointed timber be assumed to be straight an fa.
>
>Actually, I'm not so sure about fa.
Apparently you have nothing better to do than to pick at my typos.
>
>
>>d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally
>
>
>It should be jointed if it needs jointing.
Which is exactly equivalent to "it should be jointed if it hasn't been
jointed."
>
>
>>e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd better
>>order it that way or he won't get it that way.
>
>
>Or he'd better get good at selecting timber.
If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat, then
either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:54:22 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>some good stuff. some not so good stuff.
Same as you...
>
>Hey you old bugger what you doing up so late!
Same as you... and I'm pretty sure you're even older than I am.
>
>If you would only eliminate the concept of "perfect" from your
>mentality, I would be happier,
I doubt it...
>and so would you.
..but you might be right there.
>
>"...it's only rock and roll but I like it, like it, yes I do..."
Naaaahhh. With rare exceptions, Rachmaninoff and Barber among them, music
written much beyond the end of the nineteenth century is mostly crap.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:54:22 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>some good stuff. some not so good stuff.
Hey you old bugger what you doing up so late!
If you would only eliminate the concept of "perfect" from your
mentality, I would be happier, and so would you.
"...it's only rock and roll but I like it, like it, yes I do..."
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:04:17 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>I'm certainly confused by your repeated insistence that it's not necessary to
>specify jointing when ordering S2S lumber. This does not make *any* sense,
>because:
>a) the standard for S2S does not specify jointing, therefore S2S lumber can be
>assumed to not have been jointed;
Correct. To order jointing you specify J1S or J2S.
>b) boards which have not been jointed, and yet have at least one face that is
>perfectly straight and flat, with an edge that is also perfectly straight
>and perpendicular to that face, are so rare as to be for all practical
>purposes nonexistent;
The same can be said for timber that has been jointed.
>c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa;
Neither can jointed timber be assumed to be straight an fa.
Actually, I'm not so sure about fa.
>d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally
It should be jointed if it needs jointing.
>e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd better
>order it that way or he won't get it that way.
Or he'd better get good at selecting timber.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> In article Group wrote:
> [snippola]
> >Anyway, TW's info corresponds to my understanding of terms.
>
> And mine, and Andy's. Nobody has been arguing over what the terms mean.
>
> The dispute has been over the need to joint S2S lumber to get it flat (or
> perceived lack of need, on the part of one particularly condescending,
> arrogant, and completely incorrect loudmouth).
Wrong again ... the "dispute" has been all along your erroneous contention
that you need to specify "jointing".
BTW, you don't need to earn new terms from Andy, Doug ... just look in the
mirror.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Doug Miller" wrote in message...
> In article Tom Watson wrote:
> >On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:23:51 GMT,(Doug Miller)> wrote:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
> >>
> >>If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat,
then
> >>either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
> >
> >Might be straight and flat enough, if I select them carefully.
>
> Well, sure, if you're just putting up shelves in the garage. That's not
> exactly woodworking, though, more like home repair.
Open up his signature line and take a look ... then show us yours.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:23:51 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>>
>>If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat, then
>>either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
>
>Might be straight and flat enough, if I select them carefully.
Well, sure, if you're just putting up shelves in the garage. That's not
exactly woodworking, though, more like home repair.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:44:40 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Naaaahhh. With rare exceptions, Rachmaninoff and Barber among them, music
>>written much beyond the end of the nineteenth century is mostly crap.
>
>
>Did you know that Sam was born in my hometown of West Chester, Pa.
>
>I went to school with his nieces and nephews.
Cool!
>
>I like the Adagio as much as anyone but there are some interesting
>minor works that get overlooked. He lived in a house about a block
>from Claude Rains, who didn't come from WC but everybody liked having
>him around anyway.
>
>Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.
Which one? :-)
Last spring, I read a book on Christian apologetics that contained a chapter
entitled "Twenty arguments for the existence of God." As I'm sure you suspect
from some of the things I've written in the past, I'm quite sympathetic with
the author's viewpoint, but to be quite honest I found most of his arguments
unconvincing at best, and many of them contained elementary logical fallacies
which rendered them utterly invalid. The one which seemed to me to have the
most merit was Number 17, reproduced here in its entirety: "There is the music
of Johann Sebastian Bach. You either see this or you don't."
Yes, I'm very fond of the music of J.S. Bach, and that of another composer who
wrote similarly complex music but is much less widely known: Henry Purcell.
However... in my mind, nothing surpasses the nine symphonies of Ludwig van
Beethoven.
>
>I have this perfectly awesome Bach recording that I listen to almost
>every day that is by Christopher Hogwood doing the Goldberg
>Variations.
I'm familiar with the piece, of course, but not with that particular recording
of it, I don't believe.
>
>If you don't have it, I want to send it to you.
I think you know where I live. :-)
>
>I want to send it to everyone.
>
>
>The seventh cut is a killer.
I'll see if I can lay my hands on a copy. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:51:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>: "Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>:> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
>:> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
>
>: Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's raised
>: cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
>
>Nonsense. The objections he's raised to your posts, and to
>Watson's, are the opposite of
>cavilling. They're to the point, objective, and factual.
>
>
>You, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem
>Doug Miller noted for Tom Watson, except
>you've been doing it for a longer time, apparently.
>
> -- Andy Barss
Andy:
I know that you inhabit a world superior to his but I would recommend
that you look again at an old book by A.J. Ayer called Language, Truth
and Logic. If your Linguistics are not circumscribed to an analysis
of 0 and 1, it might be enjoyable for you to compare his notion of
facticity to yours.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
: In Andrew's case it is doubtful whether Ayer would have much effect. The
: prognosis for advance cases of anal rigor mortis, AKA "tightass"
I'm a tightass because I corrected you when you were wrong, and
remarked on how coarse your language is? Hmmmm. Well, if that's
your definition of a tightass, then I guess I am one. Better than being
pigheaded and childishly crude?
, whereby
: the convulsing sphincter further increases the detrimental effect of the
: rarified air of academia on a brain embedded that far up, is devastating ...
: as we've just observed.
Where does all this antagonism come from? Do you think you're
being cool or something by making posts like this? Sheesh.
-- Andy Barss
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:51:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >: "Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >
> >:> Like I said... I can remember I time when you actually made useful
> >:> contributions, instead of insults and abuse. Sad.
> >
> >: Naaah , what's REALLY "sad" is that the above is from someone who's
raised
> >: cavilling to a new level in the wRec the past couple of years.
> >
> >Nonsense. The objections he's raised to your posts, and to
> >Watson's, are the opposite of
> >cavilling. They're to the point, objective, and factual.
> >
> >
> >You, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem
> >Doug Miller noted for Tom Watson, except
> >you've been doing it for a longer time, apparently.
> >
> > -- Andy Barss
>
>
> Andy:
>
> I know that you inhabit a world superior to his but I would recommend
> that you look again at an old book by A.J. Ayer called Language, Truth
> and Logic. If your Linguistics are not circumscribed to an analysis
> of 0 and 1, it might be enjoyable for you to compare his notion of
> facticity to yours.
In Andrew's case it is doubtful whether Ayer would have much effect. The
prognosis for advance cases of anal rigor mortis, AKA "tightass", whereby
the convulsing sphincter further increases the detrimental effect of the
rarified air of academia on a brain embedded that far up, is devastating ...
as we've just observed.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:44:40 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>Naaaahhh. With rare exceptions, Rachmaninoff and Barber among them, music
>written much beyond the end of the nineteenth century is mostly crap.
Did you know that Sam was born in my hometown of West Chester, Pa.
I went to school with his nieces and nephews.
I like the Adagio as much as anyone but there are some interesting
minor works that get overlooked. He lived in a house about a block
from Claude Rains, who didn't come from WC but everybody liked having
him around anyway.
Since you are such a perfectionist you must love brother Bach.
I have this perfectly awesome Bach recording that I listen to almost
every day that is by Christopher Hogwood doing the Goldberg
Variations.
If you don't have it, I want to send it to you.
I want to send it to everyone.
The seventh cut is a killer.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:23:51 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>Guess the hyperbole went over your head, Tom. Of course jointed lumber isn't
>perfectly straight and flat either, but it's considerably closer to perfect
>than lumber that hasn't been jointed.
Yep. I guess you're just too smart for me, Douggie.
>>
>>
>>>c) S2S lumber therefore cannot be assumed to be straight and fa;
>>
>>
>>Neither can jointed timber be assumed to be straight an fa.
>>
>>Actually, I'm not so sure about fa.
>
>Apparently you have nothing better to do than to pick at my typos.
>>
Well, you being so smart and all, I thought you might have come up
with some new criteria that I, in my ignorance, was unaware of.
>>
>>>d) therefore it should be jointed before use; and finally
>>
>>
>>It should be jointed if it needs jointing.
>
>Which is exactly equivalent to "it should be jointed if it hasn't been
>jointed."
Nope, it ain't.
>>
>>
>>>e) if the purchaser does not have the means to joint it himself, he'd better
>>>order it that way or he won't get it that way.
>>
>>
>>Or he'd better get good at selecting timber.
>
>If you think that the S2S lumber you're selecting is straight and flat, then
>either your standards or your eyesight could stand some improvement.
Might be straight and flat enough, if I select them carefully.
Depends on what they're going to be used for.
A smart fella like you should be able to figure out what that means.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>> In article Group wrote:
>> [snippola]
>> >Anyway, TW's info corresponds to my understanding of terms.
>>
>> And mine, and Andy's. Nobody has been arguing over what the terms mean.
>>
>> The dispute has been over the need to joint S2S lumber to get it flat (or
>> perceived lack of need, on the part of one particularly condescending,
>> arrogant, and completely incorrect loudmouth).
>
>Wrong again ... the "dispute" has been all along your erroneous contention
>that you need to specify "jointing".
You still don't get it, do you?
The only erroneous contention made in this thread has been your completely
wrongheaded (and so far totally unexplained) claim that buying S2S lumber
somehow makes it unnecessary to specify that you want it jointed.
I repeat: if you want your lumber jointed, then you need to specify that you
want it jointed, otherwise it won't be.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"George" wrote in message
>> A planer is primarily for people who do _not_ purchase fully surfaced
>> stock,
>
>A planer is primarily used by most woodworkers to dimension to suitable
>thickness and provide a suitable surface.
.. which is why, if you want wood that's straight and flat, you don't buy
wood that's been planed but *not* jointed.
BTW, I think I just figured out why you've been so confused by this
discussion: you've been reading the word "jointed" and assuming that everyone
who uses it is talking about *edge* jointing only, without realizing that the
context makes it quite plain that we've been talking about *face* jointing.
See if you like this restatement of my first paragraph here better:
.. which is why, if you want wood that's straight and flat, you don't buy
wood that's been planed but *not* jointed one face and one edge.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bill Stock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:54:04 -0500, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The normal procedure should be face joint, then plane, then joint one
>> edge with reference to one of the flat faces, then rip to get the last
>> edge parallel to the other and perpendicular to a face.
>>
>> At least that's how I do it. It's been working for me.
>
> OK, I thought it was Face Joint, Edge Joint, Plane, Rip. But I've seen a
> few variations.
>
Frankly, I'm amazed that a sawmill operation would even have jointing
capability. Skip planing is becoming pretty common in our area, so that
automated scanning can select the cuts at the factories, but jointing is
something you do last, to get a smooth edge. Edging and ripsawing is enough
to get through the grading and stacking process. Must mean a millwork type
place?
As you see, some go by mantra, some by sense in the order of business.
Personal preference is to get a straight edge to trim to, so I can have a
more accurate cut plan and match my material list right away. Can be chalk
line/bandsaw or jointer on coarse deep cut. Then the rip on the tablesaw to
clear defects like wane or slash knots, sometimes reduce a crowned board to
two narrower pieces which will give full thickness after planing. No sense
wasting time and effort on kindling. With everything still oversize and
spares built in, I'm now ready to prepare boards.
Face, surface, join is the order from there on out. Got to have a reference
to start with, and it's a lot easier to square to a face than to face to an
edge!
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bill Stock" wrote in message
>
>> Just to clarify, I didn't actually tell the mill I wanted S2S, I told them
>I
>> wanted my lumber jointed on 1 Face and 1 Edge. I only used the S2S term
>> here. The mill was actually telling one guy they would process his lumber
>>as S3S, which I assume actually meant jointed and planed.
>
>"S3S" usually equates to "S2S1E" - surfaced two faces and 1 edge ... which
which means *planed* two faces, not *jointed*.
>would be a excellent choice for you/someone with no jointer, and with a
>planer and table saw.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If he has no jointer, but he does have a
planer and a table saw, then the last thing he wants to buy is wood that
hasn't been jointed (and therefore still needs to be). He should be buying
exactly what he asked the lumberyard for: jointed one face and one edge. He
can then use his table saw and planer to surface the other edge and face.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bill Stock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
> I'm not just being anal.
>
> I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and
> went to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a
> Jointer, just a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want
> it planed, perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look
> when I picked it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously)
> checking it over. I just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and
> there's only one or two faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill
> marks, another 3 or 4 with divots from not being flattened enough. Then
> there's the one that you almost can't tell the jointed face from the
> un-jointed face. The edges don't look bad, except for one with a bad
> split.
>
> Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
> assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
> know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
> sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
> questionable in a couple of cases.
>
You would never edge plane without first face planing; you would just have
to do it over again. S2S refers only to planing, not jointing.
Edge jointing will always be flat and smooth. Face jointing might not be.
It is easier to plane than to joint, so you can just joint enough to be sure
the face is straight and will be stable in the planer.
If this doesn't answer your question, please try to explain just what you
had done to what.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>"Swingman" wrote:
>> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>> >
>> >> >This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
>> >> >professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first
>place.
>> >>
>> >> Which is why he wanted the lumber yard to joint it...
>> >
>> >Not necessary to specify when ordering surfaced lumber.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's not correct. Specifying surfaced lumber will get you
>> something that has been planed, but not jointed. If you want it jointed,
>> it *is* necessary to say so.
>
>Not at all ... and it's pretty damned apparent that doing so is precisely
>is what got the OP such unsatisfactory results in the first place.
You're still confused. What got the OP unsatisfactory results is thinking that
S2S meant jointed one face and one edge.
>
>> Speaking of bullshit ... You're not in much of a position to be
>criticising me
>> for my use of terminology, when I'm using it correctly and *you* have it
>> backwards. S2S means it's been *planed* on two sides. Not jointed.
>
>An attempt at defensive obfuscation on your part?
No, an attempt to show you where you're going astray by clarifying the terms.
"Jointed" and "planed" are not synonymous.
>
>My EXACT quote: "S2S lumber is, by definition, surfaced (planed) on two
>faces and both edges are rough."
Exactly. Planed. That does NOT mean jointed.
>
>Once again, it is NOT necessary to specify "jointing" when buying S2S
>lumber. If you have to, you need to find a decent place to buy hardwoods.
I said it was necessary to specify jointing if you wanted jointing. If you
specify S2S, you're going to get *planing". You're NOT going to get jointing.
And that means you're going to get wood that *needs* jointing.
I have plenty of "decent places" to buy hardwoods... and I haven't yet found
even *one* board in any of them that was dead flat, with no detectable bow,
twist, or cup. Perhaps you think you have... but that says more about your
standards for picking lumber than it says about the yards where I buy mine.
>And forego trying to find web pages to back you up ...
In other words, forego trying to find web pages that show that you're
mistaken...
> what you really need
>is a trip to a hardwood lumber yard that mills lumber to spec to show you
>the error in your misconceptions.
>
The misconceptions here are _entirely_ on your part and not mine. They
apparently include the totally erroneous notion that S2S lumber is not in need
of jointing -- a misconception that will not be held long by anyone who spends
any time at all in a lumber yard and pays attention to the stock there. S2S
lumber has been planed smooth, with both faces parallel -- but it has NOT been
jointed flat.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
"Swingman" wrote:
> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> >
> >> >This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
> >> >professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first
place.
> >>
> >> Which is why he wanted the lumber yard to joint it...
> >
> >Not necessary to specify when ordering surfaced lumber.
>
> Sorry, but that's not correct. Specifying surfaced lumber will get you
> something that has been planed, but not jointed. If you want it jointed,
it
> *is* necessary to say so.
Not at all ... and it's pretty damned apparent that doing so is precisely
is what got the OP such unsatisfactory results in the first place.
> Speaking of bullshit ... You're not in much of a position to be
criticising me
> for my use of terminology, when I'm using it correctly and *you* have it
> backwards. S2S means it's been *planed* on two sides. Not jointed.
An attempt at defensive obfuscation on your part?
My EXACT quote: "S2S lumber is, by definition, surfaced (planed) on two
faces and both edges are rough."
Once again, it is NOT necessary to specify "jointing" when buying S2S
lumber. If you have to, you need to find a decent place to buy hardwoods.
And forego trying to find web pages to back you up ... what you really need
is a trip to a hardwood lumber yard that mills lumber to spec to show you
the error in your misconceptions.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
>> The misconceptions here are _entirely_ on your part and not mine. They
>> apparently include the totally erroneous notion that S2S lumber is not in
>need
>> of jointing -- a misconception that will not be held long by anyone who
>spends
>> any time at all in a lumber yard and pays attention to the stock there.
>S2S
>> lumber has been planed smooth, with both faces parallel -- but it has NOT
>been
>> jointed flat.
>
>LOL! Doug, Doug ... fercrisksakes, _you_ really would benefit from spending
>less time behind that keyboard and more woodworking.
And *you* would benefit a lot from thinking before you speak. If you had done
that in this thread, for example, you wouldn't have made yourself look so
silly as you have with your repeated insistence that S2S lumber doesn't need
jointing.
>
>"Surfaced" (S2S, S2S1E, etc.) stock is primarily sold to folks who don't own
>jointers, or don't want to have to. You do NOT have to specify that it be
>"jointed" if the dealer is following accepted industry standards/practices.
I see you're still confused.
I imagine most S2S stock is sold to people who not only don't own jointers,
but don't even know what a jointer is for. S2S stock still needs to be jointed
before it will be flat, whether the purchasers want to or not -- or whether
they know it, or not. And if you "don't want to have to" joint your lumber,
then you should buy it already jointed. Note that S2S does not mean "already
jointed".
>Until you admit that basic concept, there is no further point in listening
>to your misconceptions.
Like I said, the misconceptions are totally on your part, and not mine. S2S
lumber has two faces smooth and parallel, but those faces are not necessarily
flat. If you think they are, then you need to use a better definition of
"flat" when selecting your lumber.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
I have a planer. No jointer. I buy all my wood rough. In no way is a jointer
a necessary tool. If you just want one, fine but I can't see having one
myself. I doubt I ever will.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "B A R R Y" wrote in message
>
> > Joint face one so that it's stable against the bottom of the planer.
>
> <snip>
>
> This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
> professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first place.
>
> From his description, including the blurb "They seemed a little surprised
> that I didn't want it planed", it appears that what happened is the yard
> gave him exactly what he asked for ... rough lumber, run over a jointer.
>
> Totally usele$$ for all practical purposes ... they're probably still
> scratching their heads on that one.
>
> What the OP REALLY wants, being without a jointer, is S2S1E ... that way
he
> can rip the opposite edge to the desired width and use his planer to plane
> for the desired thickness.
>
> It is really very simple when everyone involved in the transaction speaks
> the same language. ;)
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/29/06
>
>
"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
Obviously you're still trying to make up for the ostriches, eh Andrew ...
give it up, that rarified air in academia is not up to the task.
> : "Surfaced" (S2S, S2S1E, etc.) stock is primarily sold to folks who don't
own
> : jointers, or don't want to have to.
>
> Actually, a lot of it is sold to people who don't know what a jointer is,
nor care.
Read it again ... then read what you parroted.
> If you're putting up some shelves in the garage to hold stuff, you might
not
> care (or notice) that a board has some twist, or cup, to it. If you're
> a carpenter and puting up soffits, you probbaly don't care that the boards
aren't
> the flat you get from a jointer.
>
> And a lot of S2S is sold to people who simply aren't near a
> mill. I have several excellent hardwood suppliers within driving
> distance, but I can't buy rough lumber from them -- they don't buy it.
And that proves what?
> You do NOT have to specify that it be
> : "jointed" if the dealer is following accepted industry
standards/practices.
>
> : Until you admit that basic concept, there is no further point in
listening
> : to your misconceptions.
>
>
> You are really, really confused. everything Doug Miller has
> said in this thread is completely correct, and much of what you've said
> is plain ignorant. (I wouldn't put it so bluntly, but you've
> also been pretty arrogant in your condescending responses
> to Doug's posts.)
What, in saying that you don't have to specify "jointing" when purchasing
S2S1E lumber?
Once again, it is simply NOT necessary!
> S2s is run through a planer to get the wood smooth, and have its
> faces be parallel to each other. That is NOT necessarily flat.
No one said it was ... you have to be smart enough to leave what's not at
the lumber yard, something the two of you haven't snapped to.
Now, let's just cut to the chase. Rather than dignify any further responses
from you with replies, lets just say you are still the dickhead you were
back when ostriches were from Australia, so, once again, go fuck yourself.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"CW" wrote in message
> I have a planer. No jointer. I buy all my wood rough. In no way is a
jointer
> a necessary tool. If you just want one, fine but I can't see having one
> myself. I doubt I ever will.
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
> > "B A R R Y" wrote in message
> >
> > > Joint face one so that it's stable against the bottom of the planer.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
> > professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first place.
Can't argue with you at all on that count, I spent 30 years of woodworking
without a jointer ... however, what you apparently missed was the context.
To do what the previous posters were advocating (the part of the quote
included in my reply above) _ using a jointer in the proper sequence_,
owning a jointer IS necessary to the methodology being proposed ... even it
is just a jointer plane.
The point of my quote above: no sense in leading the OP repeatedly through
the process if he doesn't own a jointer.
My mistake was in thinking that would have been obvious to someone following
the thread, obviously not.
Mea culpa ... I really should know better after over 8,000 posts on the wRec
... you really have to watch what you say around here as there are a few who
obviously have nothing else to do but argue their misconceptions, or what
they have erroneously perceived.
---
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Bill Stock" wrote in message
>>
>>> Just to clarify, I didn't actually tell the mill I wanted S2S, I told
>>> them
>>I
>>> wanted my lumber jointed on 1 Face and 1 Edge. I only used the S2S term
>>> here. The mill was actually telling one guy they would process his
>>> lumber
>>>as S3S, which I assume actually meant jointed and planed.
>>
>>"S3S" usually equates to "S2S1E" - surfaced two faces and 1 edge ... which
>
> which means *planed* two faces, not *jointed*.
>
>>would be a excellent choice for you/someone with no jointer, and with a
>>planer and table saw.
>
> That doesn't make any sense at all. If he has no jointer, but he does have
> a
> planer and a table saw, then the last thing he wants to buy is wood that
> hasn't been jointed (and therefore still needs to be). He should be buying
> exactly what he asked the lumberyard for: jointed one face and one edge.
> He
> can then use his table saw and planer to surface the other edge and face.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
This thread has gone on too long arguing over interpretations.
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I thought the sequence was Joint Face, Joint Edge, Plane opposite face and
>Rip opposite Edge.
Call those steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
You must do 1 before 2 or 3.
You must do 2 before 4.
2 and 3 may be done in either order.
3 and 4 may be done in either order.
Thus, the order of all four steps can be 1234, 1243, or 1324.
> I didn't realize I had to Plane the first Face again.
You don't necessarily -- it depends on how clean the jointed face is. If the
rough board has a slight twist or bow [*], generally you need to joint the
first face completely flat across its full width and length in order to
produce a stable reference surface for the planer. Then, the decision whether
to plane that face or not depends mostly on whether your planer will give you
an even smoother surface than you have from the jointer. If the rough board is
cupped, however, you don't need to joint it completely flat before planing the
opposite face -- but you will need to plane the jointed face again.
[* -- Boards with moderate or severe twist or bow should never see the inside
of your shop. Leave those at the lumberyard. Even if you can reduce the
degree of warp by cutting them into smaller pieces, and get them jointed
flat, they often don't stay that way. Better to start out with lumber that
doesn't have that problem to begin with. ]
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
:> jointed flat.
: LOL! Doug, Doug ... fercrisksakes, _you_ really would benefit from spending
: less time behind that keyboard and more woodworking.
You've got a lot of chutzpah for someone who's dead wrong on this.
: "Surfaced" (S2S, S2S1E, etc.) stock is primarily sold to folks who don't own
: jointers, or don't want to have to.
Actually, a lot of it is sold to people who don't know what a jointer is, nor care.
If you're putting up some shelves in the garage to hold stuff, you might not
care (or notice) that a board has some twist, or cup, to it. If you're
a carpenter and puting up soffits, you probbaly don't care that the boards aren't
the flat you get from a jointer.
And a lot of S2S is sold to people who simply aren't near a
mill. I have several excellent hardwood suppliers within driving
distance, but I can't buy rough lumber from them -- they don't buy it.
You do NOT have to specify that it be
: "jointed" if the dealer is following accepted industry standards/practices.
: Until you admit that basic concept, there is no further point in listening
: to your misconceptions.
You are really, really confused. everything Doug Miller has
said in this thread is completely correct, and much of what you've said
is plain ignorant. (I wouldn't put it so bluntly, but you've
also been pretty arrogant in your condescending responses
to Doug's posts.)
S2s is run through a planer to get the wood smooth, and have its
faces be parallel to each other. That is NOT necessarily flat.
-- Andy Barss
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
: "Andrew Barss" wrote in message
: give it up, that rarified air in academia is not up to the task.
Ah, good one, sport! Very nice. Bigot are ya?
With a sense of humor like that, I'm sure lots of people laugh at you.
Here I quote you, a couple posts back:
"Surfaced" (S2S, S2S1E, etc.) stock is primarily sold to folks who don't own
jointers, or don't want to have to. You do NOT have to specify that it be
"jointed" if the dealer is following accepted industry standards/practices.
Until you admit that basic concept, there is no further point in listening
to your misconceptions.'
:> : "Surfaced" (S2S, S2S1E, etc.) stock is primarily sold to folks who don't
: own
:> : jointers, or don't want to have to.
:>
:> Actually, a lot of it is sold to people who don't know what a jointer is,
: nor care.
: Read it again ... then read what you parroted.
Oookay... done. You imply in the quote above that if a person buys S2S lumber
there is no need to run it through a jointer, i.e. it's already
been done. And that's what you're wrong about. I'm not parroting, that's
a direct quote up there.
:> If you're putting up some shelves in the garage to hold stuff, you might
: not
:> care (or notice) that a board has some twist, or cup, to it. If you're
:> a carpenter and puting up soffits, you probbaly don't care that the boards
: aren't
:> the flat you get from a jointer.
:>
:> And a lot of S2S is sold to people who simply aren't near a
:> mill. I have several excellent hardwood suppliers within driving
:> distance, but I can't buy rough lumber from them -- they don't buy it.
: And that proves what?
Your post led me to believe that you thought that
a) if a person buys S2S, it's because doing so makes having a jointer
unnecessary.
b) if a person doesn't own a jointer, he/she ought to buy S2S lumber.
I was noting that a person can buy S2S lumber for other reasons,
including the lack of an alternative. I can get some 50 or so domestic
and exotic hardwoods within a 15-minute drive from my house. Every stick
and board is S2S or better.
:> You do NOT have to specify that it be
:> : "jointed" if the dealer is following accepted industry
: standards/practices.
Go. Look. Up. What. The. Terms. Actually. Mean.
As another poster noted, these terms are defined in the
industry. You don't get to redefine them at will.
S2S = surfaced two sides, on a planer.
S2S1E = that, plus straight-line ripped on one edge.
If you don't believe me, ask someone in the industry. Call a
mill or a hardwood supplier and ask them to
define it. You'll get the same information. Look it up in a book
if you can.
S2S =/= surfaced on ANY side with a jointer.
:> : Until you admit that basic concept, there is no further point in
: listening
:> : to your misconceptions.
Back at ya.
: What, in saying that you don't have to specify "jointing" when purchasing
: S2S1E lumber?
: Once again, it is simply NOT necessary!
You're either deliberately being thick, or you got a comprehension
problem.
: Now, let's just cut to the chase. Rather than dignify any further responses
: from you with replies, lets just say you are still the dickhead you were
: back when ostriches were from Australia, so, once again, go fuck yourself.
What are you, thirteen?
-- Andy Barss
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:54:04 -0500, "Bill Stock" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
>I'm not just being anal.
>
>I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and went
>to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a Jointer, just
>a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want it planed,
>perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look when I picked
>it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously) checking it over. I
>just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and there's only one or two
>faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill marks, another 3 or 4 with
>divots from not being flattened enough. Then there's the one that you almost
>can't tell the jointed face from the un-jointed face. The edges don't look
>bad, except for one with a bad split.
>
>Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
>assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
>know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
>sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
>questionable in a couple of cases.
>
>
>
>
Bill:
I believe that what you really wanted is what is called SLR1E in the
lumber trade.
This stands for Straight Line Ripped One Edge and is the creation of a
reference edge for sitting against your table saw fence.
This allows you to cut a line parallel to the ripped edge, so that you
wind up with a board of equal width throughout its length.
They don't actually use a jointer to do this jointing but use a
straight line ripping saw to cut the straight line.
Lumber terminology can be confusing. S2S usually means planing both
faces of the board to a given dimension. You may also specify that it
only be skip planed to a given dimension, which may give you hollows
on one or both faces.
S4S is used as a designation in softwood rendering and produces
dimension lumber, such as 2x4 and 2x6 etc.
When I was ordering a lot of hardwood lumber for my shop I would buy
it skip planed to 13/16" with one face flat and an edge done SLR1E.
This gave me a reference edge for the table saw and a reference for
the planing. I didn't want the rough planers that the yard used to
bring my sticks any closer to final thickness because my little
lunchbox planer, with me paying close attention to grain direction and
depth of cut, could produce a far nicer face.
Regards,
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
> "Swingman" wrote:
>> >"Doug Miller" wrote in message
>> >
>> >> >This has gotten awfully bogged down in methodology for someone who
>> >> >professedly doesn't own a _necessary_ tool (jointer) in the first
> place.
>> >>
>> >> Which is why he wanted the lumber yard to joint it...
>> >
>> >Not necessary to specify when ordering surfaced lumber.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's not correct. Specifying surfaced lumber will get you
>> something that has been planed, but not jointed. If you want it jointed,
> it
>> *is* necessary to say so.
>
> Not at all ... and it's pretty damned apparent that doing so is precisely
> is what got the OP such unsatisfactory results in the first place.
>
>> Speaking of bullshit ... You're not in much of a position to be
> criticising me
>> for my use of terminology, when I'm using it correctly and *you* have it
>> backwards. S2S means it's been *planed* on two sides. Not jointed.
>
> An attempt at defensive obfuscation on your part?
>
> My EXACT quote: "S2S lumber is, by definition, surfaced (planed) on two
> faces and both edges are rough."
>
> Once again, it is NOT necessary to specify "jointing" when buying S2S
> lumber. If you have to, you need to find a decent place to buy hardwoods.
>
> And forego trying to find web pages to back you up ... what you really
> need
> is a trip to a hardwood lumber yard that mills lumber to spec to show you
> the error in your misconceptions.
Neat thing about standards is they're published. S1S, S2S, S1E, _S2S1E_ and
so forth are all accepted standards.
www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch05.pdf "Jointed" is not in the
nomenclature. Not that your yard (wo)man will comprehend, of course. At
least one poster in this thread is adamantly ignorant of the meaning....
"Bill Stock" wrote in message
> This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation that
> I'm not just being anal.
>
> I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and
went
> to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a Jointer,
just
> a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't want it planed,
> perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick look when I picked
> it up today, but did not spend too much time (obviously) checking it over.
I
> just examined all the boards (6'*6" roughly) and there's only one or two
> faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with deepish mill marks, another 3 or 4 with
> divots from not being flattened enough. Then there's the one that you
almost
> can't tell the jointed face from the un-jointed face. The edges don't look
> bad, except for one with a bad split.
>
> Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
> assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
> know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
> sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
> questionable in a couple of cases.
Your problem appears to be is one of not thoroughly understanding industry
terminology.
S2S lumber is, by definition, surfaced (planed) on two faces and both edges
are rough.
Not trying to be a smartass, but you'll have a better experience next time
if you just tell them your expectations/what you want, instead of using
terminology without a full understanding of the definition.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Bill Stock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Bill Stock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> This question is somewhat rhetorical, but I'd like some confirmation
>>> that I'm not just being anal.
>>>
>>> I picked out some lumber from the mill for the first time last week and
>>> went to pick it up today. I had it jointed (S2S) as I don't have a
>>> Jointer, just a Planer. They seemed a little surprised that I didn't
>>> want it planed, perhaps that partly explains the results. I had a quick
>>> look when I picked it up today, but did not spend too much time
>>> (obviously) checking it over. I just examined all the boards (6'*6"
>>> roughly) and there's only one or two faces that are smooth, 4 or 5 with
>>> deepish mill marks, another 3 or 4 with divots from not being flattened
>>> enough. Then there's the one that you almost can't tell the jointed face
>>> from the un-jointed face. The edges don't look bad, except for one with
>>> a bad split.
>>>
>>> Should I expect these to be jointed for flatness AND smoothness? Can I
>>> assume that they expected to plane the marks out of the jointed faces? I
>>> know the real answer is to return these for a redo, but can I plane both
>>> sides to clean these up? Assuming they are actually flat, which is
>>> questionable in a couple of cases.
>>>
>> You would never edge plane without first face planing; you would just
>> have to do it over again. S2S refers only to planing, not jointing.
>
> Thanks, I thought the two sides referred to the Edge and the Face.
>
>> Edge jointing will always be flat and smooth. Face jointing might not
>> be. It is easier to plane than to joint, so you can just joint enough to
>> be sure the face is straight and will be stable in the planer.
>
> Yes, edges look good, faces not so much. I guess the varying quality
> depends on the original "quality" of the board.
>
> I thought the sequence was Joint Face, Joint Edge, Plane opposite face and
> Rip opposite Edge. I didn't realize I had to Plane the first Face again.
>
The important thing is that you face joint before edge joint. It doesn't
really matter if you plane before or after edge jointing.
If they did those, you are in good shape. As long as the face is flat,
straight, and square to the edge, a few irregularities will come out in the
planer.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
> The misconceptions here are _entirely_ on your part and not mine. They
> apparently include the totally erroneous notion that S2S lumber is not in
need
> of jointing -- a misconception that will not be held long by anyone who
spends
> any time at all in a lumber yard and pays attention to the stock there.
S2S
> lumber has been planed smooth, with both faces parallel -- but it has NOT
been
> jointed flat.
LOL! Doug, Doug ... fercrisksakes, _you_ really would benefit from spending
less time behind that keyboard and more woodworking.
"Surfaced" (S2S, S2S1E, etc.) stock is primarily sold to folks who don't own
jointers, or don't want to have to. You do NOT have to specify that it be
"jointed" if the dealer is following accepted industry standards/practices.
Until you admit that basic concept, there is no further point in listening
to your misconceptions.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tH%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As you see, some go by mantra, some by sense in the order of business.
>>Personal preference is to get a straight edge to trim to, so I can have a
>>more accurate cut plan and match my material list right away. Can be
>>chalk
>>line/bandsaw or jointer on coarse deep cut.
>
> Fine so far... but next, we disagree.
>
>>Then the rip on the tablesaw to
>>clear defects like wane or slash knots, sometimes reduce a crowned board
>>to
>>two narrower pieces which will give full thickness after planing.
>
> If the board isn't pretty close to flat already, you're running a
> significant
> risk of binding and kickback by ripping on a tablesaw. Better to use a
> bandsaw
> for this step if the board hasn't been face-jointed yet.
I "left those at the lumberyard," or in my case, the sawmill. You do what
you're comfortable with as far as width reduction. Can also save some
thickness if you knock either side off.
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>As you see, some go by mantra, some by sense in the order of business.
>Personal preference is to get a straight edge to trim to, so I can have a
>more accurate cut plan and match my material list right away. Can be chalk
>line/bandsaw or jointer on coarse deep cut.
Fine so far... but next, we disagree.
>Then the rip on the tablesaw to
>clear defects like wane or slash knots, sometimes reduce a crowned board to
>two narrower pieces which will give full thickness after planing.
If the board isn't pretty close to flat already, you're running a significant
risk of binding and kickback by ripping on a tablesaw. Better to use a bandsaw
for this step if the board hasn't been face-jointed yet.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <eMl4h.100115$E67.99079@clgrps13>, "efgh" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"Bill Stock" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Just to clarify, I didn't actually tell the mill I wanted S2S, I told
>>>>> them
>>>>I
>>>>> wanted my lumber jointed on 1 Face and 1 Edge. I only used the S2S
>>>>> term
>>>>> here. The mill was actually telling one guy they would process his
>>>>> lumber
>>>>>as S3S, which I assume actually meant jointed and planed.
>>>>
>>>>"S3S" usually equates to "S2S1E" - surfaced two faces and 1 edge ...
>>>>which
>>>
>>> which means *planed* two faces, not *jointed*.
>>>
>>>>would be a excellent choice for you/someone with no jointer, and with a
>>>>planer and table saw.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make any sense at all. If he has no jointer, but he does
>>> have
>>> a planer and a table saw, then the last thing he wants to buy is wood
>>> that
>>> hasn't been jointed (and therefore still needs to be). He should be
>>> buying
>>> exactly what he asked the lumberyard for: jointed one face and one edge.
>>> He can then use his table saw and planer to surface the other edge and
>>> face.
>
>>This thread has gone on too long arguing over interpretations.
>
> Sorry, but what do you mean by "arguing over interpretations"? What's to
> interpret about "jointed"? Either stock has been jointed straight and
> flat, or
> it has not. S2S lumber is in the latter category.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Maybe I should have said expectations.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I recommended S2S1E to the OP, because if learns how to pick his lumber,
>learning that art with both sides surfaced until he gets the hang of it, he
>has much better chance of satisfaction than he had previously received when
>ordering his lumber "jointed", including the convenience being able to rip
>to width and planing to thickness with the tools he already owned.
So you recommend to the guy who does NOT have a jointer that he should STOP
buying jointed lumber, and instead buy lumber that has NOT been jointed, so
that when he planes to thickness he's now referencing against an UNjointed
face when previously he had been referencing against a jointed (and
therefore flat) face.
And you claim he'll have better satisfaction and convenience.
I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a jointer is for.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
>> You are really, really confused. everything Doug Miller has
>> said in this thread is completely correct, and much of what you've said
>> is plain ignorant. (I wouldn't put it so bluntly, but you've
>> also been pretty arrogant in your condescending responses
>> to Doug's posts.)
>
>What, in saying that you don't have to specify "jointing" when purchasing
>S2S1E lumber?
>
>Once again, it is simply NOT necessary!
Not if you don't *want* it jointed, anyway... If you *do* want it jointed,
though, you'd better say so, or it won't be.
>
>> S2s is run through a planer to get the wood smooth, and have its
>> faces be parallel to each other. That is NOT necessarily flat.
>
>No one said it was ... you have to be smart enough to leave what's not at
>the lumber yard, something the two of you haven't snapped to.
No, what *you* haven't "snapped to" is that the lumber you are buying is *not*
dead flat like lumber that comes off of a jointer. If you *think* it is, then
you need to raise your standards for picking lumber... or get your eyes
checked.
>
>Now, let's just cut to the chase. Rather than dignify any further responses
>from you with replies, lets just say you are still the dickhead you were
>back when ostriches were from Australia, so, once again, go fuck yourself.
Amazing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.