I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.
My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).
*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.
My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.
What say you?
-Steve
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>What say you?
>
Turn the page. <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On Oct 5, 6:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
> together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
> his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
> the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.
>
> My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
> to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
> assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
> think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
> (those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).
>
> *** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
> out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
> I find that a bit hard to swallow.
>
> My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
> not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
> that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
> akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
> make a better sedan than Honda.
>
> What say you?
Sounds simply stupid. Hard to believe it was in FWW. Maybe he put
the decimal in the wrong place.
R
On Oct 5, 6:05 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Turn the page. <G>
You bet. That's the reason I subscribe to PC World, not FWW. Their
articles are more and more suspect in their quality
OK, that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for guys
over 50.... ;^)
Robert
Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 7:24am (EDT-3) [email protected]
<snip> that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for
guys over 50.... =A0 =A0 =A0 ;^)
Hah! WoodenBoat, and CarCraft.
JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."
On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> What say you?
This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
It also happened to American Woodworker when Reader's Digest took
over. Out with all the old experts and in with a bunch of
journalists. The difference with FWW is that it's been happening
slowly, over a long period of time (since the early 90's). It
happened all at once with AW. None of the magazines want real
(educated) technical expertise - not even if it is offered for free.
I'm sure the journalists are making that call too. You can expect
this to continue until one magazine suddenly realizes that they can
make money by providing correct, technically accurate, useful info.
I registered on the Taunton web site so that I could read their
forums. BIG mistake. Now I get spam from them every day. I think
I've seen 200-300 "Last chance for free shipping" messages (how many
"last" chances can one get?). So, I guess the MBAs have taken over
the marketing department too.
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
On Oct 5, 11:23 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm.
.......now WHO is supposed to be the long-hair? *snickers*
On Oct 5, 3:10 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
Most of the time I clamp, or
> heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
> 200 pounds pressure.
Case in point: Look at all the laminating and veneering marvels taking
place at a mere 14.6 PSIG..... in a vacuum bag.
On Oct 5, 5:41 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Besides, I hardly have enough to cover my ears.
Pretty soon I can cover MY ears from the inside out.
*smirk*
Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 2:43pm (EDT-3) [email protected] (Robatoy) doth
sayeth:
Pretty soon I can cover MY ears from the inside out.
Now you know the reason fire was stolen from the Gods.
JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."
On Oct 5, 5:40 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:10 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Most of the time I clamp, or
>
> > heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
> > 200 pounds pressure.
>
> Case in point: Look at all the laminating and veneering marvels taking
> place at a mere 14.6 PSIG..... in a vacuum bag.
make that PSIA
On Oct 5, 4:56?pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.
>
> Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.
>
Woodworking with Don Martin. That I would LOVE to have seen!
FoggyTown
On Oct 5, 11:43?am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
> together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
> his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
> the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.
>
> My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
> to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
> assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
> think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
> (those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).
>
> *** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
> out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
> I find that a bit hard to swallow.
>
> My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
> not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
> that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
> akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
> make a better sedan than Honda.
>
> What say you?
>
> -Steve
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
So how does this reconcile with Norm's constant advice not to clamp
tight enough to squeeze the glue out of the joint? I'd have thought
that going for 1,200 lb/sq in would have squeezed every atom of glue
out long before it even got there.
FoggyTown
On Oct 5, 6:07 pm, FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 4:56?pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.
>
> > Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.
>
> Woodworking with Don Martin. That I would LOVE to have seen!
Don Martin is one of my very favourite artists. That guy could express
emotions in the silliest ways.
His Mona Lisa is my favourite and I used it many times in a few
Photoshop contests to wit:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/weeeeee.jpg
On Oct 5, 12:25 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Bennett wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> >> What say you?
>
> > This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
> > It also happened to American Woodworker when Reader's Digest took
> > over. Out with all the old experts and in with a bunch of
> > journalists. The difference with FWW is that it's been happening
> > slowly, over a long period of time (since the early 90's). It
> > happened all at once with AW. None of the magazines want real
> > (educated) technical expertise - not even if it is offered for free.
>
> ...
>
> Well, in this case the author is actually a PhD in Industrial Technology
> specializing in furniture manufacturing technology it appears. See my
> earlier response.
Didn't see this before I posted. If I get a chance I'll check out the
FWW article. I haven't received FWW since 1992 so I will have to wait
for it to hit the newsstands.
> It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
> possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
> research to the task at hand...
Based on the references you posted above, it would seem that they
erred in the opposite direction this time: too academic.
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
On Oct 5, 6:18 pm, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Turns out the "journalist" in this case is a University professor
> with several publications on the topic of glueline strength in wood.
>
> While one may disagree with his results, I'd argue that he is an 'expert'.
>
Indeed. I didn't see that tidbit until after posting. I still
maintain that it was the journalist types who decided that he was the
right guy for the article. It's kind of like hiring a Phd in
electormagnetic wave propagation to tell you what's on TV tonight.
I've talked to several of these magazine editors about the lack of any
technical expertise on their staffs. I've suggested that they need
someone who is familiar with basic experimental design and data
collection. They just don't understand why. It doesn't take a Phd,
just someone who has taken some undergrad experimental science
courses. The "Myth Busters" guys, while not always designing perfect
experiments, consistently do better than anything I've seen in the
woodworking magazines. And, they don't mind doing more experiments
when someone pokes holes in the results (as opposed to the "we stand
by our results" BS).
Ed Bennett
[email protected]
http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
On Oct 5, 8:54 pm, Ed Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's kind of like hiring a Phd in
> electormagnetic wave propagation to tell you what's on TV tonight.
We have a winner.
On Oct 5, 9:58 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)
When I got my complimentary issue I ran out of the house like it was
on fire. I couldn't get away fast enough.
Bu the sad truth is that when I go to B&N to peruse the magazines, I
do enjoy looking at those tan bodied, long-legged doctor killers on
the magazines. 23 years old, legs about he length of my waist size,
and you could strike a match on their stomach.
But the magazines I actually pick up have ridiculous crap on them like
"cordless drill shootout", and "learning to make perfect dovetails
with your screwdrivers" and some such nonesense.
Sigh.
Robert
On Oct 5, 4:43 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 5:41 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Besides, I hardly have enough to cover my ears.
>
> Pretty soon I can cover MY ears from the inside out.
>
> *smirk*
Alright, NOW THAT'S FUNNY.
All I have to worry about is nosehair in my moustache.
Robert
On Oct 5, 11:23 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "dpb" wrote
>
> > Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
> > Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
> > I've subscribed since about Vol 2, but if it weren't for that longtime
> > inertia doubt would any longer...
>
> I've mentioned before the obvious lameness of some of the "methods of work"
> and "tips and tricks" in woodworking magazines in general the past few
> years. Also noteworthy is the general increase in contentiousness of
> "letter's to the editor's" in these same magazines since the advent of
> inclusion of "e-mail".
>
> Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm (the general 'dumbing down')? ...
> probably not too far off the mark.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 9/30/07
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Years ago, I wrote that too much clamp pressure might cause glue
starvation. Then a host of people came up with a "no way in hell"
response.
I am willing to bet that if you use FWW's (or, rather, their author's)
criteria, you'll have a good shot at reaching that stage, if you don't
otherwise.
I've been woodworking for something over 50 years--54 years ago, I was
working after school at the Katonah Altar Factory--and I have never
once heard anyone recommend pressures like those.
Still, I have to admit, I'm seeing some delamination in cutting boards
I made 20 years ago. I think most of that, and probably all, is due to
the boards getting a too wet swipe with a rag too often, without being
dried. Not good for Titebond, which is what I used back then.
On Oct 6, 6:22 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:26:11 -0400, willshak <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Timothy Leary had a PHD in psychology.
>
> In some ways he studied it well. <G>
>
Timothy Learys dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
Timothy Learys dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
Hell fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Learys dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
Timothy Learys dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
Hell fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Along the coast youll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, well drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.
Hell take you up, hell bring you down,
Hell plant your feet back firmly on the ground.
He flies so high, he swoops so low,
He knows exactly which way hes gonna go.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Hell take you up, hell bring you down,
Hell plant your feet back on the ground.
Hell fly so high, hell swoop so low.
Timothy Leary.
Hell fly his astral plane.
Hell take you trips around the bay.
Hell bring you back the same day.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary.
C & S wrote:
> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
> together flatsawn sugar maple.
Franklin recommends 175-250psi for Titebond III on hardwoods.
I know a local maker of bass guitars that uses a 20-ton steel press for
gluing up laminated body blanks. He uses custom-made 1-inch thick steel
plates top and bottom because weaker materials kept bending.
Of course you can get very acceptable joints with much less pressure
than this, especially if your mating surfaces are well machined and in
good condition.
Chris
J T wrote:
> Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 6:43am [email protected] (C & S) doth
> posteth:
> <snip> While Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he
> makes the assertion that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of
> clamping force <snip>
> What say you?
>
> Sounds like he can't blind anyone with is "science", so he's trying
> to baffle with bullshit.
dpb linked to the abstract for one of the articles:
<http://swst.metapress.com/content/1050536165217317/?p=8b5006db06be4640acd2801679e46c4e&pi=3>
Basically, according to that article the optimum gluing pressure for PVA
and sugar maple is .5 times the compression strength, or around 735psi.
However, they don't show the psi/glue strength curve, so the amount of
strength loss at lower clamping pressures is not discussed.
Chris
on 10/5/2007 6:07 PM FoggyTown said the following:
> On Oct 5, 4:56?pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.
>>>
>> Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.
>>
>>
>
> Woodworking with Don Martin. That I would LOVE to have seen!
>
> FoggyTown
>
>
How about the Furniture Guys from TV, Ed Feldman and Joe L'Erario?
I mistakenly typed 'furniture gays' in Google, but I don't think it was
too far off. :-)
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Your bench is doomed. ;) --dave
"C & S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work.
> While
> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the
> assertion
> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
> together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number,
> that's
> his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
> the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.
>
> My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to
> have
> to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
> assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and
> I
> think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
> (those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).
>
> *** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470
> lbs.)
> out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy))
> clamp.
> I find that a bit hard to swallow.
>
> My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
> not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint
> failure
> that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
> akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
> make a better sedan than Honda.
>
> What say you?
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
on 10/5/2007 8:18 PM Scott Lurndal said the following:
> Ed Bennett <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> What say you?
>>>
>> This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
>>
>
> Turns out the "journalist" in this case is a University professor
> with several publications on the topic of glueline strength in wood.
>
> While one may disagree with his results, I'd argue that he is an 'expert'.
>
> scott
>
Timothy Leary had a PHD in psychology.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
B A R R Y wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:19:30 -0400, willshak <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>I mistakenly typed 'furniture gays' in Google, but I don't think it was
>>too far off. :-)
>>
>
> Any good sites with photos of wood? <G>
My guess, the latter (photos of wood), yes, the former ("good" sites), not
so much.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
LRod wrote:
> I moved on the instant I saw the glue up with the QuickGrips on it. He
> asserts you can get greater pressure with them than K-Bodies? Please.
Were they the old Quickgrips, or the new ones? The newer "XP" ones can
give a LOT more pressure than the old ones (they claim 900lbs squeezing
with two hands).
Chris
Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 6:43am [email protected] (C=A0&=A0S) doth
posteth:
<snip> While Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he
makes the assertion that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of
clamping force <snip>
What say you?
Sounds like he can't blind anyone with is "science", so he's trying
to baffle with bullshit.
The other day I glued two pieces of wood, making a specialized,
quicky, one-time use, planer sled. The top piece kept tipping, so I
used a few pound lead weight on it, to hold it in place. Titebond II,
as usual, and if I'd wanted to part the joint the next day, I'd have had
to saw it apart, or beat it with a hammer. If it hadn't tipped, I'd
probably still have used a weight, because, while the joint would have
held (for sure stronger than the wood), I've found that sometimes the
top piece will creep a bit without. Most of the time I clamp, or
heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
200 pounds pressure.
JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."
Yeah, I tried a couple of them when they first came out, and they were crap.
After they sat around taking up spae for years, I finally just threw them
out. One of the contractors I used to work with would pick one or two up
every couple years to see if they ever improved, and they never seem to.
Just one more of the gizmos that is targeted to homowners and handymen that
just don;t know better (or just don't care).
Having said that, for one time very light duty use, I might grab one - IF
they were a lot cheaper than any other option...
-jd
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
>>Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work.
> [snip]
>
> I moved on the instant I saw the glue up with the QuickGrips on it. He
> asserts you can get greater pressure with them than K-Bodies? Please.
>
> I bought my first QuickGrips probably 20 years ago. It took me all of
> about five minutes to figure out they were possibly okay for some
> tasks, but you couldn't depend on them staying clamped and they
> definitely couldn't be clamped really hard. Those first ones were also
> my last ones.
>
>
> --
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>
> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>
> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
> care to correspond with you anyway.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:17:53 -0700, FoggyTown <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So how does this reconcile with Norm's constant advice not to clamp
>tight enough to squeeze the glue out of the joint? I'd have thought
>that going for 1,200 lb/sq in would have squeezed every atom of glue
>out long before it even got there.
>
>FoggyTown
Are you sure he even used glue?
Sounds to me like he's trying to force the atoms in the separate
pieces of wood to intermingle and form a single, contiguous piece.
Forge welding wood?
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 5, 9:58 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)
>
> When I got my complimentary issue I ran out of the house like it was
> on fire. I couldn't get away fast enough.
>
> Bu the sad truth is that when I go to B&N to peruse the magazines, I
> do enjoy looking at those tan bodied, long-legged doctor killers on
> the magazines. 23 years old, legs about he length of my waist size,
> and you could strike a match on their stomach.
Aren't air brushes great. ;~)
>
> But the magazines I actually pick up have ridiculous crap on them like
> "cordless drill shootout", and "learning to make perfect dovetails
> with your screwdrivers" and some such nonesense.
>
> Sigh.
Yup.
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:58:43 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> OK, that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for guys
>> over 50.... ;^)
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)
>
And how does AARP know I'm over 50? Is there any way to tell AARP
that I'm really dead?
dpb wrote:
>
> Wes Stewart wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:41:28 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> >> Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
> >> Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
> >
> > I agree with everything said. I consider myself a beginning
> > woodworker and look to FWW and other sources for expert and
> > trustworthy advice.
> >
> > The "trustworthy" part is very important. What happens when something
> > is published that I know enough about to know is wrong, is that it
> > then casts suspicion on everything else that is published that I don't
> > know anything about.
> >
> > Even as a beginner I'm seeing the "dumbing down" and repetition of
> > content. Handcut dovetails have pretty much been covered before
> > haven't they?
> >
> > And another time that is really pissing me off is this trend of having
> > "additional content" on a website. (At extra cost, of course.) I'm in
> > the country with no available broadband, so subscribing to get video
> > feeds is out of the question. That's why I want a paper copy, but
> > somehow I don't think FWW or FHB is listening to me.
>
> Same here on the broadband unavailability and ticked off about
> added-cost web sites. Of course, the Taunton site was always so slow as
> to be essentially unusable anyway, so it's not like we really lost
> anything except the potential... :(
>
> As last followup on the gluing clamping force article --
>
> I looked for the corroborating science behind Dr. Rabiej's article on
> his web site -- http://roman.rabiej.com/cv/
>
> The only published articles on glueline strength all have to do with
> laser-cut materials, not normal shop panel glueups. Under those
> conditions, I could _perhaps_ believe something differing from previous
> experience, but it's simply ridiculous to publish an article as was done
> that so much flies in the face of experience without at least a
> reference to the science behind the work claimed to support the conclusions.
>
> These are typical research projects found above, none of which could I
> find actual articles online for...
>
> Optimizing Glueline Strength of Laser-Cut Hardwoods. Funded by the
> United States Department of Agriculture.
>
> Factors Affecting the Magnitude of Glueline Shear Strength Between
> Veneering and Particleboard Substrate. Funded by Karona, Inc. in Grand
> Rapids, MI.
>
> Gluability of Wood on a Laser-Cut Kerf. Proceedings of the Second
> International Conference on Automated Lumber Processing Systems and
> Laser Machining of Wood. MSU. June 1994.
>
> Factors Affecting the Load Bearing Capacity of MOD-EEZ Connectors.
> Forest Products Journal, 43(9):49-57, 1993.
>
> Glueline Shear Strength of Laser-Cut Wood. Forest Products Journal
> 43(2):45-54, 1993.
>
> The Effect of Clamping Pressure and Orthotropic Wood Structure on the
> Strength of Glued Bonds, Wood and Fiber Science Vol. 24, No. 3, July 1992.
>
> One assumes that the last might have the basis for much in the article.
>
> Well, the text of the article is protected content, but the abstract is
> available.
>
> <http://swst.metapress.com/content/1050536165217317/?p=8b5006db06be4640acd2801679e46c4e&pi=3>
>
> R. J. Rabiej, Associate Professor1, H. D. Behm, Professor and Chairman
>
> Department of Engineering Technology College of Engineering and Applied
> Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008
> Abstract
>
> Reference values for compression strength perpendicular to the grain
> were determined for radial and tangential sections of samples of sugar
> maple and ponderosa pine. Samples to be glued were matched according to
> specific gravity and orthotropic structure and bonded along the grain in
> tangential or radial sections. Magnitude of clamp pressure was
> controlled throughout a range of pressures commonly applied in industry,
> up to about 80% of the compression strength of the wood sample. Tests
> were conducted on the bonded samples to determine glueline shear
> strength and percent of wood failure at the bonded surfaces. Results
> were subjected to regression analysis to ascertain relationships. It was
> determined that clamping pressure had a different effect on both shear
> strength and percent of wood failure depending on species and
> orthotropic section. It is possible to maximize joint strength by
> applying proper clamping pressure. Results similar in direction but
> differing in magnitude were obtained with both PVAc and U-F adhesives. A
> generalized measure of clamping pressure was defined as the ratio of
> applied clamping pressure to the compression strength (CP/CS) of the
> wood section to be glued. Using this concept, the optimum clamping
> pressure for sugar maple was found to be 0.3 times compression strength
> using U-F glue and 0.5 times using PVAc glue. This approach to
> determining reliable clamping pressure data can lead to improved gluing
> practice and more precise testing procedures.
>
> \endquote
>
> So, using the data from FPL at
> <http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/HardwoodNA/htmlDocs/acersp1.html>,
> the compression strength for dry sugar maple perpendicular to the grain
> direction is 1470 psi. Half of that would be 735 psi for his optimum by
> my reckoning. That's at least in the ballpark of his table values so
> guess the paper probably does form the basis for the article.
>
> How applicable it is to "ordinary" woodworking and, most interestingly,
> how "peaked" is the maximum of his regression curve and what other
> factors were controlled (and not controlled) would be of interest and
> necessary to know something of in order to judge if there's anything in
> the article pertinent to typical work of the type done by FWW's readership.
>
> I seriously doubt there's much work been done by the past masters that
> seems to have survived quite nicely that had anything even remotely
> approaching those kinds of clamping pressures. And, interestingly
> enough, later on in the same issue there's an article that extolls the
> use of the old wooden screw clamp (w/ whose flavor I'm quite consonant,
> btw).... :)
>
> --
You do know that there are several different satellite Internet services
available that are available pretty much anywhere in North America
except a cave, and are reasonably affordable? They aren't as inexpensive
as DSL or cable where those are available, but they're getting pretty
close and I believe they all offer residential flat rate plans vs. the
old per KB type plans.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:53:35 -0700, Wes Stewart <n7ws*@*yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Even as a beginner I'm seeing the "dumbing down" and repetition of
>content. Handcut dovetails have pretty much been covered before
>haven't they?
Unfortunately, there's only so much you can do. Take 10 magazines
with 6 issues a year each, over a decade... it isn't like woodworking
changes all that much, you're going to get a lot of repetition,
especially since they've got to think about new readers who are
picking up the magazine for the first time.
If you're looking for original content, don't pick up magazines.
B A R R Y <[email protected]> writes:
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:26:11 -0400, willshak <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Timothy Leary had a PHD in psychology.
>
>
>In some ways he studied it well. <G>
>
And he's _still_ spaced out.
scott
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> OK, that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for guys
> over 50.... ;^)
>
> Robert
>
I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)
Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 9:58am (EDT-1) [email protected] (Leon)
doth claimeth:
I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)
Tried it. Didn't renew. It's for "old" people.
JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."
"dpb" wrote
> It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
> possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
> research to the task at hand...
While the OP doesn't say what type of glue the article references, it makes
you wonder how many thousands of pounds/sq in clamping force Stradivarius
used on those violins still being played? :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> All I have to worry about is nosehair in my moustache.
Just wait till some of that "nosehair" starts growing on the outside of the
appendage!
Nature will eventually humble you, one way or the other ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
> together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number,
> that's
> his recommended number.
I thought the article last month saying that yellow glue was stronger than
epoxy or poly in gap filling was pretty stupid.
Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.
LRod wrote:
>
> I moved on the instant I saw the glue up with the QuickGrips on it. He
> asserts you can get greater pressure with them than K-Bodies? Please.
I knew I wouldn't be the only one who noticed that statement.
Quick Grips are excellent for one handed grabs, strapping my DT jig to
the bench, hold-downs for biscuit cutting or drilling, etc... I've never
had good luck with them for gluing.
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>C & S wrote:
>> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
>> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work.
>> While
>> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the
>> assertion
>> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
>> together flatsawn sugar maple.
>
> Franklin recommends 175-250psi for Titebond III on hardwoods.
>
> I know a local maker of bass guitars that uses a 20-ton steel press for
> gluing up laminated body blanks. He uses custom-made 1-inch thick steel
> plates top and bottom because weaker materials kept bending.
>
> Of course you can get very acceptable joints with much less pressure than
> this, especially if your mating surfaces are well machined and in good
> condition.
But how much pressure is it, really? 20 tons spread over one square foot is
277 lbs/sq. inch.
- Owen -
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> On Oct 5, 11:23 am, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >
> > Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm.
>
> .......now WHO is supposed to be the long-hair? *snickers*
That's what an education will get you, Bubba ... a snicker? Besides, I
hardly have enough to cover my ears.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.
>
Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
C & S wrote:
> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our
> work. While Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he
> makes the assertion that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of
> clamping force to glue together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not
> even the optimal number, that's his recommended number. Please
> please please, just show us the graph with the sweet spot of glue
> joint failure to clamps required.
>
> My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going
> to have to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of
> pressure when assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent
> clamp collection and I think I could get about 15% of the way there
> with about every clamp I own (those fancy bessy's are only good for
> 370 lbs of squish y'know).
>
> *** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure
> (470
> lbs.) out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet
> Master/Bessy)) clamp. I find that a bit hard to swallow.
>
> My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science"
> does not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue
> joint failure that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}.
> Rabeij's conclusion is akin to saying that we should all drive a
> $259K Bently because Bently can make a better sedan than Honda.
>
> What say you?
A quick look at the FPL handbook(
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch09.pdf ) reveals
that the recommended clamping pressure range is 100-247 psi, with
further notes that this depends not only on the density of the wood
but also on the viscosity of the adhesive and the quality of the
surface, and that too thin a glue line is as bad as too thick, with an
optimal thickness of .003-.006 inches.
Now it might be that he's bonding with some ancient almost-dried-out
Titebond that gives him a good glue line at the pressures that he's
using or it might be that he has access to some newer research or it
might be that he's full of crap.
Personally though, given the choice between Forest Products
Laboratories and the unsupported opinion of some unknown art
professor, I'll take FPL.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
>> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
>> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
>> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
>> together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
>> his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
>> the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.
>>
>> My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
>> to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
>> assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
>> think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
>> (those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).
>>
>> *** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
>> out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
>> I find that a bit hard to swallow.
>>
>> My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
>> not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
>> that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
>> akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
>> make a better sedan than Honda.
>>
>> What say you?
>
> Sounds simply stupid. Hard to believe it was in FWW. Maybe he put
> the decimal in the wrong place.
The article is pretty lame, I just skimmed it. I agree w/ nailshooter's
comment above that FWW articles/editing have slipped drastically
recently. They have apparently been unable to replace the first
generation writers of the class of Tage Frid, et al. with anybody
approach their combination of skill and writing and in large part seem
to be reliant on submitted articles from wanna-be-published's for
content. They also made conscious editorial change to put in much
higher percentage of stuff for newcomers which has probably increased
circulation at the cost of lower level of article.
Speaking of lame articles, there was a response to some of the criticism
of the bandsaw evaluation article that was also extremely lame (the
response as well as the article :) ). A Rikon rep went by and saw the
setup after the fact apparently and pointed out they reproduced the rip
test w/ drastically faster results.
The rebuttal was that while the FWW article mis-identified the blade
used for their tests as a hook-tooth when in fact it was a skip-tooth
blade they stood by the relative rankings of their testing with still
nary a word to justify the gross discrepancies.
WMH wrote in to affirm the earlier information I found in trying to dig
out any possible reasons for the discrepances of there being an
alignment problem with the riser kits for the Jet and Powermatic saws
which caused the alignment "issues" for which there is tech support to
resolve.
Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
I've subscribed since about Vol 2, but if it weren't for that longtime
inertia doubt would any longer...
--
Wes Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:41:28 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
>> Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
>> Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
>
> I agree with everything said. I consider myself a beginning
> woodworker and look to FWW and other sources for expert and
> trustworthy advice.
>
> The "trustworthy" part is very important. What happens when something
> is published that I know enough about to know is wrong, is that it
> then casts suspicion on everything else that is published that I don't
> know anything about.
>
> Even as a beginner I'm seeing the "dumbing down" and repetition of
> content. Handcut dovetails have pretty much been covered before
> haven't they?
>
> And another time that is really pissing me off is this trend of having
> "additional content" on a website. (At extra cost, of course.) I'm in
> the country with no available broadband, so subscribing to get video
> feeds is out of the question. That's why I want a paper copy, but
> somehow I don't think FWW or FHB is listening to me.
Same here on the broadband unavailability and ticked off about
added-cost web sites. Of course, the Taunton site was always so slow as
to be essentially unusable anyway, so it's not like we really lost
anything except the potential... :(
As last followup on the gluing clamping force article --
I looked for the corroborating science behind Dr. Rabiej's article on
his web site -- http://roman.rabiej.com/cv/
The only published articles on glueline strength all have to do with
laser-cut materials, not normal shop panel glueups. Under those
conditions, I could _perhaps_ believe something differing from previous
experience, but it's simply ridiculous to publish an article as was done
that so much flies in the face of experience without at least a
reference to the science behind the work claimed to support the conclusions.
These are typical research projects found above, none of which could I
find actual articles online for...
Optimizing Glueline Strength of Laser-Cut Hardwoods. Funded by the
United States Department of Agriculture.
Factors Affecting the Magnitude of Glueline Shear Strength Between
Veneering and Particleboard Substrate. Funded by Karona, Inc. in Grand
Rapids, MI.
Gluability of Wood on a Laser-Cut Kerf. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Automated Lumber Processing Systems and
Laser Machining of Wood. MSU. June 1994.
Factors Affecting the Load Bearing Capacity of MOD-EEZ Connectors.
Forest Products Journal, 43(9):49-57, 1993.
Glueline Shear Strength of Laser-Cut Wood. Forest Products Journal
43(2):45-54, 1993.
The Effect of Clamping Pressure and Orthotropic Wood Structure on the
Strength of Glued Bonds, Wood and Fiber Science Vol. 24, No. 3, July 1992.
One assumes that the last might have the basis for much in the article.
Well, the text of the article is protected content, but the abstract is
available.
<http://swst.metapress.com/content/1050536165217317/?p=8b5006db06be4640acd2801679e46c4e&pi=3>
R. J. Rabiej, Associate Professor1, H. D. Behm, Professor and Chairman
Department of Engineering Technology College of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Abstract
Reference values for compression strength perpendicular to the grain
were determined for radial and tangential sections of samples of sugar
maple and ponderosa pine. Samples to be glued were matched according to
specific gravity and orthotropic structure and bonded along the grain in
tangential or radial sections. Magnitude of clamp pressure was
controlled throughout a range of pressures commonly applied in industry,
up to about 80% of the compression strength of the wood sample. Tests
were conducted on the bonded samples to determine glueline shear
strength and percent of wood failure at the bonded surfaces. Results
were subjected to regression analysis to ascertain relationships. It was
determined that clamping pressure had a different effect on both shear
strength and percent of wood failure depending on species and
orthotropic section. It is possible to maximize joint strength by
applying proper clamping pressure. Results similar in direction but
differing in magnitude were obtained with both PVAc and U-F adhesives. A
generalized measure of clamping pressure was defined as the ratio of
applied clamping pressure to the compression strength (CP/CS) of the
wood section to be glued. Using this concept, the optimum clamping
pressure for sugar maple was found to be 0.3 times compression strength
using U-F glue and 0.5 times using PVAc glue. This approach to
determining reliable clamping pressure data can lead to improved gluing
practice and more precise testing procedures.
\endquote
So, using the data from FPL at
<http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/HardwoodNA/htmlDocs/acersp1.html>,
the compression strength for dry sugar maple perpendicular to the grain
direction is 1470 psi. Half of that would be 735 psi for his optimum by
my reckoning. That's at least in the ballpark of his table values so
guess the paper probably does form the basis for the article.
How applicable it is to "ordinary" woodworking and, most interestingly,
how "peaked" is the maximum of his regression curve and what other
factors were controlled (and not controlled) would be of interest and
necessary to know something of in order to judge if there's anything in
the article pertinent to typical work of the type done by FWW's readership.
I seriously doubt there's much work been done by the past masters that
seems to have survived quite nicely that had anything even remotely
approaching those kinds of clamping pressures. And, interestingly
enough, later on in the same issue there's an article that extolls the
use of the old wooden screw clamp (w/ whose flavor I'm quite consonant,
btw).... :)
--
Ed Bennett wrote:
> On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> What say you?
>
> This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
> It also happened to American Woodworker when Reader's Digest took
> over. Out with all the old experts and in with a bunch of
> journalists. The difference with FWW is that it's been happening
> slowly, over a long period of time (since the early 90's). It
> happened all at once with AW. None of the magazines want real
> (educated) technical expertise - not even if it is offered for free.
...
Well, in this case the author is actually a PhD in Industrial Technology
specializing in furniture manufacturing technology it appears. See my
earlier response.
It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
research to the task at hand...
--
Swingman wrote:
> "dpb" wrote
>
>> It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
>> possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
>> research to the task at hand...
>
> While the OP doesn't say what type of glue the article references, it makes
> you wonder how many thousands of pounds/sq in clamping force Stradivarius
> used on those violins still being played? :)
What the article says is "I'll assume you're using yellow (polyvinyl
acetate--PVA) glue..."
The tome I posted previously that reference one of the good doctor's
published papers used PVAc and U-F according to the abstract I was able
to find.
Well, of course ol' Strad had the advantage of dividing by a small
denominator to raise the pressure significantly... :)
Although, had they even invented pressure back then? <vbg>
--
In article <[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Oct 5, 3:10 pm, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
> Most of the time I clamp, or
>> heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
>> 200 pounds pressure.
>
>Case in point: Look at all the laminating and veneering marvels taking
>place at a mere 14.6 PSIG..... in a vacuum bag.
WHAT?!?!?!?
You don't have a high pressure chamber (that you can pressurize to 2000 PSI)
with an attached vacuum line to deal with leakage.
You know, make your veneer sandwich in plastic bag. Enter pressure chamber.
Attach vacuum line. Exit pressure chamber. Start vacuum. Start pressure
(don't forget the 400 degree F heat) and wait while your new masterpiece
is fused into one indivisable whole.
;)
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ed Bennett <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What say you?
>> This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
>
> Turns out the "journalist" in this case is a University professor
> with several publications on the topic of glueline strength in wood.
>
> While one may disagree with his results, I'd argue that he is an 'expert'.
His results are probably "spot on" for what he tested, but it's the
applicability and usefulness for the intended audience I question... :)
In particular, notice in the abstract of the paper I posted earlier the
testing was for shear strength of the joint which is rarely the failure
mode in most furniture glue joints. It also neglects that most
well-fitting joints in testing through the years at much lower clamping
pressures will break the wood rather than the glue joint. Once the
joint is as strong or stronger than the wood, there's very little if any
point in worrying about making it stronger. In short, the results may
have some limited applicability for commercial manufacturing processes
for which I strongly suspect the research was directed, but think it of
little practical value for the average guy reading FWW.
None of this directed at you, just one last thought I had on the overall
subject and this seemed convenient place to put it in...
--
Ed Bennett wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:25 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed Bennett wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> What say you?
>>> This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
>>> It also happened to American Woodworker when Reader's Digest took
>>> over. Out with all the old experts and in with a bunch of
>>> journalists. The difference with FWW is that it's been happening
>>> slowly, over a long period of time (since the early 90's). It
>>> happened all at once with AW. None of the magazines want real
>>> (educated) technical expertise - not even if it is offered for free.
>> ...
>>
>> Well, in this case the author is actually a PhD in Industrial Technology
>> specializing in furniture manufacturing technology it appears. See my
>> earlier response.
>
> Didn't see this before I posted. If I get a chance I'll check out the
> FWW article. I haven't received FWW since 1992 so I will have to wait
> for it to hit the newsstands.
>
>> It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
>> possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
>> research to the task at hand...
>
> Based on the references you posted above, it would seem that they
> erred in the opposite direction this time: too academic.
Except they left every bit of the basis for the recommendation out of
the article as well as any discussion of difference in results in not
following the recommendation (which of course there's a tremendous
amount of data that says gluelines don't fail at far lower clamping
pressures).
--
Pete C. wrote:
> dpb wrote:
...
>> Same here on the broadband unavailability ...
...
> You do know that there are several different satellite Internet services
> available that are available pretty much anywhere in North America
> except a cave, and are reasonably affordable? They aren't as inexpensive
> as DSL or cable where those are available, but they're getting pretty
> close and I believe they all offer residential flat rate plans vs. the
> old per KB type plans.
Well, actually, the local ISP has put a wireless transmitter on the
microwave tower north of the house that should be within range. The
short coming to date is getting a line-of-sight location to it without
cutting into the windbreak--here, having that is worth far more than
broadband! :) The plan is when get the barn renovation done, to put the
receiver in the cupola which is high enough to be above the cedars and a
wireless router to the house. The holdup is far more pressing things on
the schedule so it's more fun to complain about the shortcoming... :)
--
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:23 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "dpb" wrote
>>
>>> Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
>>> Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
>>> I've subscribed since about Vol 2, but if it weren't for that longtime
>>> inertia doubt would any longer...
>> I've mentioned before the obvious lameness of some of the "methods of work"
>> and "tips and tricks" in woodworking magazines in general the past few
>> years. Also noteworthy is the general increase in contentiousness of
>> "letter's to the editor's" in these same magazines since the advent of
>> inclusion of "e-mail".
>>
>> Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm (the general 'dumbing down')? ...
>> probably not too far off the mark.
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 9/30/07
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> Years ago, I wrote that too much clamp pressure might cause glue
> starvation. Then a host of people came up with a "no way in hell"
> response.
>
> I am willing to bet that if you use FWW's (or, rather, their author's)
> criteria, you'll have a good shot at reaching that stage, if you don't
> otherwise.
...
If you really applied that kind of force on dense hardwood, I tend to
agree without anything more scienfic other than, like you, a long time
doing this.
It isn't available how the author did the testing reported in the paper
to achieve the reported pressures, but he claims it isn't a problem from
his work.
But, if it was done by counting more clamps as added pressure, that
really doesn't produce a direct increase in total pointwise clamping
pressure as the force is distributed in a ray from the clamping point
and the maximum total pressure is the vector sum of the applied forces.
Consequently, only actually increasing the ability of the clamp itself
to apply more force will actually make the total pressure increase
linearly at the clamping point--the other clamps added along the length
of the joint only add their reduced overlapping partial contribution.
Consequently, except under the laboratory conditions of having a massive
press with which to do the testing, the pressures applied in the shop
aren't anything approaching what the simple summation of all clamps'
total force would imply. Which, by the way, is the assumption made in
the article in the "formula" for determining the total number of clamps
required. (And, btw for anybody else who has the article or looks at
it, there's a mistake in units in it as printed -- the force/clamp is
given units of lb/in instead of just lb.)
--
jd wrote:
> Yeah, I tried a couple of them when they first came out, and they
> were crap. After they sat around taking up spae for years, I finally
> just threw them out. One of the contractors I used to work with
> would
> pick one or two up every couple years to see if they ever improved,
> and they never seem to. Just one more of the gizmos that is targeted
> to homowners and handymen that just don;t know better (or just don't
> care).
If they're slipping or not grabbing, _clean_ them. They often come
from the store with grease on the lock or the bar--if there's any
grease or oil there at all they'll slip. If they're clean they
actually hold with a pretty good amount of force (and yes, I do have
K-bodies). The big problem I have with them is that the jaws aren't
very rigid, so the work will shift sideways during clamping.
I wouldn't have ever thought of getting them but I was working on an
overhead job with a bunch of little bits and pieces and one of them
fell on my head one time too many and I went down to Home Despot for a
roll of carpet tape to hold them in place. On the way to the carpet
tape I saw packages of four Quik-grips on sale for some absurdly low
price, took a good look at them, and realized that they'd hold my bits
and pieces without having to pry the carpet tape off later. Gave them
a try, then started using them for other stuff. Found out that they
were _far_ better than the comments I've seen here would suggest, as
long as they were kept clean.
And yes, I have a bunch of K-bodys and pipe clamps and handscrews and
C-clamps and probably just about any other kind of clamp you can
imagine. Each serves a purpose.
Incidentally, the difficulty with getting high forces out of Besseys
is the handle, it doesn't give you any real leverage.
> Having said that, for one time very light duty use, I might grab one
> - IF they were a lot cheaper than any other option...
>
> -jd
>
> "LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious
>>> About
>>> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our
>>> work. [snip]
>>
>> I moved on the instant I saw the glue up with the QuickGrips on it.
>> He asserts you can get greater pressure with them than K-Bodies?
>> Please.
>>
>> I bought my first QuickGrips probably 20 years ago. It took me all
>> of
>> about five minutes to figure out they were possibly okay for some
>> tasks, but you couldn't depend on them staying clamped and they
>> definitely couldn't be clamped really hard. Those first ones were
>> also my last ones.
>>
>>
>> --
>> LRod
>>
>> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>>
>> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>>
>> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>>
>> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>>
>> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
>> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
>> care to correspond with you anyway.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:41:28 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
>Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
I agree with everything said. I consider myself a beginning
woodworker and look to FWW and other sources for expert and
trustworthy advice.
The "trustworthy" part is very important. What happens when something
is published that I know enough about to know is wrong, is that it
then casts suspicion on everything else that is published that I don't
know anything about.
Even as a beginner I'm seeing the "dumbing down" and repetition of
content. Handcut dovetails have pretty much been covered before
haven't they?
And another time that is really pissing me off is this trend of having
"additional content" on a website. (At extra cost, of course.) I'm in
the country with no available broadband, so subscribing to get video
feeds is out of the question. That's why I want a paper copy, but
somehow I don't think FWW or FHB is listening to me.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:07:37 -0700, FoggyTown <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Woodworking with Don Martin. That I would LOVE to have seen!
Complete with toes that hang straight down over a sawhorse lip? <G>
<http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~eric/images/comics/donmartin/dm_bounceback.jpg>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:15:07 -0700, RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Sounds simply stupid. Hard to believe it was in FWW. Maybe he put
>the decimal in the wrong place.
>
>R
Unfortunately, I believe it was there. FWW has recently (last year or
two) had a large scale change of staff which has resulted in it
morphing into a publication that I no longer take seriously.
It's unfortunate because thanks to my father-in-law, I have the
complete collection. The older publications were treasures. The
latest ones, not so much.
===========================================================================
Chris
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ed Bennett <[email protected]> writes:
>On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> What say you?
>
>This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
Turns out the "journalist" in this case is a University professor
with several publications on the topic of glueline strength in wood.
While one may disagree with his results, I'd argue that he is an 'expert'.
scott
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:19:30 -0400, willshak <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I mistakenly typed 'furniture gays' in Google, but I don't think it was
>too far off. :-)
>
Any good sites with photos of wood? <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
>Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
>Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
>that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
>together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
>his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
>the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.
>
>My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
>to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
>assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
>think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
>(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).
>
>*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
>out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
>I find that a bit hard to swallow.
>
>My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
>not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
>that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
>akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
>make a better sedan than Honda.
>
>What say you?
>
>-Steve
Sounds like I've been doing it wrong all these years, yet not a single
piece has fallen apart do to a bad glue up. I drive a truck--it can
haul a lot more wood than a Bently. Find it hard to believe FWW would
have such an article.
Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 11:01am (EDT+4) [email protected] (Phisherman) doth
sayeth:
Sounds like I've been doing it wrong all these years, yet not a single
piece has fallen apart do to a bad glue up. <snip>
Had one glue joint fail. With Titebond II that had been below 50
degrees. Nice looking joint, but it popped apart with just a bit of
pressure. Called the Titebond people (there IS a 1-800 number on the
back of each container, for those of you without a clue), and, if I
recall right, this was some years back, warmed it up, added a bit of
water, shook the snot out of it. Whatever they told me, it worked, and
the rest of the container performed quite satisfactorily. I still use
Titebond II, and now make sure it doesn't stay overnight in the shop in
the winter.
JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."
"dpb" wrote
> Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
> Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
> I've subscribed since about Vol 2, but if it weren't for that longtime
> inertia doubt would any longer...
I've mentioned before the obvious lameness of some of the "methods of work"
and "tips and tricks" in woodworking magazines in general the past few
years. Also noteworthy is the general increase in contentiousness of
"letter's to the editor's" in these same magazines since the advent of
inclusion of "e-mail".
Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm (the general 'dumbing down')? ...
probably not too far off the mark.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:26:11 -0400, willshak <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Timothy Leary had a PHD in psychology.
In some ways he studied it well. <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
willshak <[email protected]> writes:
>on 10/5/2007 8:18 PM Scott Lurndal said the following:
>> Ed Bennett <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What say you?
>>>>
>>> This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
>>>
>>
>> Turns out the "journalist" in this case is a University professor
>> with several publications on the topic of glueline strength in wood.
>>
>> While one may disagree with his results, I'd argue that he is an 'expert'.
>>
>> scott
>>
>
>Timothy Leary had a PHD in psychology.
>
And he was an expert on LSD.
scott (pun intended)
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, C & S wrote:
> I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
> Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
> Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
> that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue ...
Between that and the recent bandsaw fiasco, Fine WW may soon become "Final".
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
>Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work.
[snip]
I moved on the instant I saw the glue up with the QuickGrips on it. He
asserts you can get greater pressure with them than K-Bodies? Please.
I bought my first QuickGrips probably 20 years ago. It took me all of
about five minutes to figure out they were possibly okay for some
tasks, but you couldn't depend on them staying clamped and they
definitely couldn't be clamped really hard. Those first ones were also
my last ones.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.