I just got 100bf of rough red and qs-white oak. It is mostly very
straight and I can't wait to see it as beautiful furniture. Only one
board looks bad, it has severe cupping at one end for about 4 ft. It
is about 7" wide and 1 1/8" thick. If I laid it flat on a table the
center is probably 3/8" maybe even 1/2" off the table.
This is what I'm thinking. I can use this board to make some 3/4 x 3/4
sticks I need for the project. If I started jointing one face flat, I
probably wouldn't have enough board left once I got it flat. So I
think I'll rip it in half and start jointing it flat on one face then
plane the other face to 3/4", joint one edge, then rip 3/4" sticks.
I suppose this will change the angle of the grain to the faces but
just by maybe 5-10 degrees at most. This shouldn't be a problem should
it? BTW, this is a red oak piece so I'm not worried about the qs
figure.
One more question, would you joint the concave or convex face?
BW
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let me guess. You're not in the business?
>
> http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fputr/fputr9.pdf
>
> I guess the rest of the lumber business will have to fall in line with
> you....
>
Yeah, the government always knows the best way to do things.
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Since trees are round and (most) boards are rectangles:
> > - flatsawn is just an approximation - only a tiny part of a board
> > has grain parallel to the face. The bigger the tree was, the
> > closer the outside boards will be to truly flatsawn.
> > - there are only 4 TRULY quartersawn boards in a tree...unless the
> > sawyer wasted a LOT of wood
>
>
> In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think
> it means what you think it means."
> http://www.launstein.com/flooring/plane-and-quarter.html
>
>
Commercial website notwithstanding, take a close look at the quartersawn
diagram and connect the lines. You'll wind up with a series of concentric
squares. The original poster is very close, but it all depends on the size
of the tree, the sawyer's technique, and the thickness and width of the
boards. A very large tree, sliced into narrow thin boards, will yield a
substantial amount of quartersawn wood.
JonE
Good thinking, Bill, using the cupped piece for the sticks. Should be no
problem with the small change in face presentation. I'd joint the concave face
first, as it'll lay on the jointer table with greater stability. Unless of
course, you're going at it with a hand plane, then never mind! Tom
>:
[email protected] (Bill Wallace)
>Date: 08/22/2003 12:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>I just got 100bf of rough red and qs-white oak. It is mostly very
>straight and I can't wait to see it as beautiful furniture. Only one
>board looks bad, it has severe cupping at one end for about 4 ft. It
>is about 7" wide and 1 1/8" thick. If I laid it flat on a table the
>center is probably 3/8" maybe even 1/2" off the table.
>
>This is what I'm thinking. I can use this board to make some 3/4 x 3/4
>sticks I need for the project. If I started jointing one face flat, I
>probably wouldn't have enough board left once I got it flat. So I
>think I'll rip it in half and start jointing it flat on one face then
>plane the other face to 3/4", joint one edge, then rip 3/4" sticks.
>
>I suppose this will change the angle of the grain to the faces but
>just by maybe 5-10 degrees at most. This shouldn't be a problem should
>it? BTW, this is a red oak piece so I'm not worried about the qs
>figure.
>
>One more question, would you joint the concave or convex face?
>
>BW
In article <[email protected]>, Chris
Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmm. That certainly is not the definition I found when I went
> looking for the difference between the two...now I'll have to
> go figure out where I found it.
>
> snip
Chris is this closer to what you were talking about?
http://www.stuarts.net/Stuwritup/quarter/quartersawn.htm
Frank C.
> Since trees are round and (most) boards are rectangles:
> - flatsawn is just an approximation - only a tiny part of a board
> has grain parallel to the face. The bigger the tree was, the
> closer the outside boards will be to truly flatsawn.
> - there are only 4 TRULY quartersawn boards in a tree...unless the
> sawyer wasted a LOT of wood
In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think
it means what you think it means."
http://www.launstein.com/flooring/plane-and-quarter.html
In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <rPH1b.1826$%[email protected]>, "PM6564"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >To be quartersawn, the tree must be cut into quarters and then the
>wood
>> >is
>> >> >sliced radially (i.e. from the center) from the log. It entails quite
>a
>> >bit
>> >> >of waste but is much more stable. Riftsawn is when the board is cut
>into
>> >> >quarters and then boards are taken from alternating sides.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, but you're misinformed. Both of these methods are among the
>methods
>> >of
>> >> quartersawing wood (there are yet others). The distinction between
>> >riftsawn
>> >> and quartersawn is in the angle at which the growth rings meet the face
>of
>> >the
>> >> board, not in the manner in which the boards were sawn.
>> >
>> >
>> >Right - it's not called plainsawn, quartersawn or riftsawn becuase of the
>> >way it's sawn. Let me guess, you're an engineer or a computer
>programmer?
>>
>> I haven't exactly made a secret of that in my posts in this ng, have I?
>
>I don't exactly hang on your every word so I wouldn't know.
Search Google if you wish. You didn't manage to brilliantly deduce something
that nobody knew previously.
>> >True quartersawn wood is sawn radially. Period.
>>
>> Let me guess: you're a pedant. And an uninformed one, at that.
>
>Ooooh, sorry Doug, you lose all your money and you're going to have to sit
>the next round out.
I think I hit the target close enough. 9-ring, anyway.
>Now let me guess, you have no practical experience but
>rely on others for all your knowledge.
>
Enough practical experience to know that there are more ways than one of
quartersawing a log.
>
>> >Definitions may have
>> >changed to suit industry but wood sawn any way other than radially will
>not
>> >have the same grain patterns or stability. Here is the Hardwood Council's
>> >website http://www.hardwoodcouncil.com/display_tip.asp?artID=138 About
>> >halfway down shows the NOFMA standards.
>> >
>> Maybe you should read that a bit more carefully. That's not an "NOFMA
>> standard", it's just a general description: "Boards can be cut from a
>hardwood
>> log in two principal directions: tangent to the annual rings (plainsawn or
>> flatsawn), or radially, across the rings (quartersawn)."
>
>It's the description that the NOFMA uses for their definition of grading.
>Radially across the rings would mean coming out from the center meaning the
>rings run at 90 degrees to the face of the cut board. Not 60, not 70, but
>90.
>
>>
>> You are apparently unaware that radial sawing is only *one* way of
>producing
>> quartersawn lumber. Read the book I cited. Since you snipped the citation,
>> I'll provide it again: "Fine Woodworking on Wood and How to Dry It." Pages
>> 50-51 describe *four* different ways of quartersawing lumber.
>>
>
>It's immaterial as your book describes quartersawn as rings from 60-90
>degrees. That may be true in some commericial practices but it does not
>yield true quartersawn wood. Because the description is wrong, the
>different ways of sawing it are not relevent. If you got white oak with the
>rings 60 degrees from the face, the meduliary rays would be anywhere from
>non-existant to very poor. That may be fine for your work but it's
>unacceptable for mine.
>
>You listen to your books and I'll listen to my sawyers.
>
It is a fact that there are more ways than one to quartersaw a log. That you
are ignorant of that fact, makes it no less a fact.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <rPH1b.1826$%[email protected]>, "PM6564"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >To be quartersawn, the tree must be cut into quarters and then the
wood
> >is
> >> >sliced radially (i.e. from the center) from the log. It entails quite
a
> >bit
> >> >of waste but is much more stable. Riftsawn is when the board is cut
into
> >> >quarters and then boards are taken from alternating sides.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sorry, but you're misinformed. Both of these methods are among the
methods
> >of
> >> quartersawing wood (there are yet others). The distinction between
> >riftsawn
> >> and quartersawn is in the angle at which the growth rings meet the face
of
> >the
> >> board, not in the manner in which the boards were sawn.
> >
> >
> >Right - it's not called plainsawn, quartersawn or riftsawn becuase of the
> >way it's sawn. Let me guess, you're an engineer or a computer
programmer?
>
> I haven't exactly made a secret of that in my posts in this ng, have I?
I don't exactly hang on your every word so I wouldn't know.
>
> >True quartersawn wood is sawn radially. Period.
>
> Let me guess: you're a pedant. And an uninformed one, at that.
Ooooh, sorry Doug, you lose all your money and you're going to have to sit
the next round out. Now let me guess, you have no practical experience but
rely on others for all your knowledge.
>
> >Definitions may have
> >changed to suit industry but wood sawn any way other than radially will
not
> >have the same grain patterns or stability. Here is the Hardwood Council's
> >website http://www.hardwoodcouncil.com/display_tip.asp?artID=138 About
> >halfway down shows the NOFMA standards.
> >
> Maybe you should read that a bit more carefully. That's not an "NOFMA
> standard", it's just a general description: "Boards can be cut from a
hardwood
> log in two principal directions: tangent to the annual rings (plainsawn or
> flatsawn), or radially, across the rings (quartersawn)."
It's the description that the NOFMA uses for their definition of grading.
Radially across the rings would mean coming out from the center meaning the
rings run at 90 degrees to the face of the cut board. Not 60, not 70, but
90.
>
> You are apparently unaware that radial sawing is only *one* way of
producing
> quartersawn lumber. Read the book I cited. Since you snipped the citation,
> I'll provide it again: "Fine Woodworking on Wood and How to Dry It." Pages
> 50-51 describe *four* different ways of quartersawing lumber.
>
It's immaterial as your book describes quartersawn as rings from 60-90
degrees. That may be true in some commericial practices but it does not
yield true quartersawn wood. Because the description is wrong, the
different ways of sawing it are not relevent. If you got white oak with the
rings 60 degrees from the face, the meduliary rays would be anywhere from
non-existant to very poor. That may be fine for your work but it's
unacceptable for mine.
You listen to your books and I'll listen to my sawyers.
In article <rPH1b.1826$%[email protected]>, "PM6564" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>To be quartersawn, the tree must be cut into quarters and then the wood is
>sliced radially (i.e. from the center) from the log. It entails quite a bit
>of waste but is much more stable. Riftsawn is when the board is cut into
>quarters and then boards are taken from alternating sides.
>
Sorry, but you're misinformed. Both of these methods are among the methods of
quartersawing wood (there are yet others). The distinction between riftsawn
and quartersawn is in the angle at which the growth rings meet the face of the
board, not in the manner in which the boards were sawn.
See "Fine Woodworking on Wood and How to Dry It" [Taunton Press, 1986, ISBN
0-918804-54-X], pages 50-51, for an excellent description of quartersawn wood
and the different methods of producing it.
Brief excerpts:
"In commercial practice, any board with growth rings 60 degrees to 90 degrees
to the surface is considered quartersawn ... When the growth rings are cut at
an angle too far off the radial, the boards are referred to as riftsawn. The
rings are less than 60 degrees but greater than 30 degrees to the board's
surface..."
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
In article <[email protected]>, "PM6564" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <rPH1b.1826$%[email protected]>, "PM6564"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >To be quartersawn, the tree must be cut into quarters and then the wood
>is
>> >sliced radially (i.e. from the center) from the log. It entails quite a
>bit
>> >of waste but is much more stable. Riftsawn is when the board is cut into
>> >quarters and then boards are taken from alternating sides.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, but you're misinformed. Both of these methods are among the methods
>of
>> quartersawing wood (there are yet others). The distinction between
>riftsawn
>> and quartersawn is in the angle at which the growth rings meet the face of
>the
>> board, not in the manner in which the boards were sawn.
>
>
>Right - it's not called plainsawn, quartersawn or riftsawn becuase of the
>way it's sawn. Let me guess, you're an engineer or a computer programmer?
I haven't exactly made a secret of that in my posts in this ng, have I?
>True quartersawn wood is sawn radially. Period.
Let me guess: you're a pedant. And an uninformed one, at that.
>Definitions may have
>changed to suit industry but wood sawn any way other than radially will not
>have the same grain patterns or stability. Here is the Hardwood Council's
>website http://www.hardwoodcouncil.com/display_tip.asp?artID=138 About
>halfway down shows the NOFMA standards.
>
Maybe you should read that a bit more carefully. That's not an "NOFMA
standard", it's just a general description: "Boards can be cut from a hardwood
log in two principal directions: tangent to the annual rings (plainsawn or
flatsawn), or radially, across the rings (quartersawn)."
You are apparently unaware that radial sawing is only *one* way of producing
quartersawn lumber. Read the book I cited. Since you snipped the citation,
I'll provide it again: "Fine Woodworking on Wood and How to Dry It." Pages
50-51 describe *four* different ways of quartersawing lumber.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
"Chris Merrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve wrote:
> > In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think
> > it means what you think it means."
> > http://www.launstein.com/flooring/plane-and-quarter.html
>
> Hmmm. That certainly is not the definition I found when I went
> looking for the difference between the two...now I'll have to
> go figure out where I found it.
>
> The discussions about wood movement here have used the two
> terms in a way that agrees with my understanding...but from
> the diagram, there are many plainsawn boards that will be
> more stable than many quartersawn boards.
>
> C
>
To be quartersawn, the tree must be cut into quarters and then the wood is
sliced radially (i.e. from the center) from the log. It entails quite a bit
of waste but is much more stable. Riftsawn is when the board is cut into
quarters and then boards are taken from alternating sides.
Frank Campbell wrote:
> Chris is this closer to what you were talking about?
> http://www.stuarts.net/Stuwritup/quarter/quartersawn.htm
>
> Frank C.
Yes, exactly.
I have read dozens or articles about wood stability and finishing that
talk about quartersawn vs plainsawn. The context always implied the
orientation of the grain relative to the face or the board, NOT the
way the wood was originally sawn.
--
************************************
Chris Merrill
[email protected]
(remove the ZZZ to contact me)
************************************