Another obsessional wood movement question...

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" wrote in message
>
>> > A design which calls for "screwing the shelf to the legs", unless I am
>> > missing something in your description, does not appear to be taking the
>> > dimensional instability of the solid wood into account.
>> >
>> Maybe I am not understanding the problem here. If I am, I would be
> grateful
>> for an explanation.
>>
>> The two legs are held together by:
>> 1) the top, which is parallel to the leg grain (pocket screwed, glue?)
>> 2) the side panels, parallel to the leg grain (glued)
>> 3) the shelf, parallel to the leg grain (pocket screwed)
>
>> (Thinking about it now, I could probably have avoided the problem by
> simply
>> making the shelf 1/16" narrower everything else. Does that make sense?)
>
> Using a more conventional method of table construction I would say that
> would be one way to deal with it ... but since the shelf is apparently
> what
> is holding the legs together?

Primarily the sides are holding the legs together, though the top could
probably adequate also. Was my 1,2, 3 ambiguous?

The shelf adds a little rigidity probably, but the legs couldn't possibly
come apart if the shelf were removed.
>
>> So, where is the wood movement that I am not considering?
>> (I haven't put the top on yet, and am undecided about gluing it.)
>
> From what you've described thus far, you might want to consider floating
> the
> top.
>
The top and the sides have paralllel grain. The top and the front and rear
aprons have parallel grain. Why would I want to float it? With all the
grain running the same, why would anything move?

> BTW, went to look at the picture again to try and better answer your
> questions, but it appears to have been removed.
>
http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg

"toller" wrote in message ...

>I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
>support with grain running the other direction (across the shelf).

> Is this idea sound?

If I understand your post correctly, your main concern revolves around the
'cross grain' situation betwen the shelf and its support(s)?

From your description, the way you attach the supports to the _legs_, if you
are indeed doing so, should be irrelevant for all practical purposes.

If there is no mechanical attachment between the shelf and the new supports,
IOW, no screws, nails, brads, pegs, etc.or glue, and the shelf is just
sitting on the support(s), then wood movement should not be a problem
between the two.

However, most any time you create a "cross grain" situation between two
pieces of wood that are _fastened_ together in some manner, you will need to
address the cross grain situation. There are a number of ways to do this.

But, you can't really get a definitive answer until you specify the method,
if any, by which you are attaching the new support(s) to the under side to
the shelf?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" wrote in message ...
>
>>> Sorry, I left a word out.
>> Why not screw the shelf to the two legs
>
> We're talking solid wood here, not laminate or veneer, right?
>
> Why? You already know that solid wood of that width needs room to expand
> and
> contract with seasonal changes.
>
> A design which calls for "screwing the shelf to the legs", unless I am
> missing something in your description, does not appear to be taking the
> dimensional instability of the solid wood into account.
>
Maybe I am not understanding the problem here. If I am, I would be grateful
for an explanation.

The two legs are held together by:
1) the top, which is parallel to the leg grain (pocket screwed, glue?)
2) the side panels, parallel to the leg grain (glued)
3) the shelf, parallel to the leg grain (pocket screwed)

Presumably the top, side panels, shelf, and legs all expand pretty much the
same rate; so there is no relative movement. The legs are quarter sawn, but
they are small and on the outside, so that shouldn't matter.

The problem that prompted the whole thread is 4) the cross grain support
(loosely pocket screwed).
I understand the support should have been done better; presumably mortised
to the legs. But what difference does it make whether the shelf is screwed
to the legs or not? The danger is that the shelf (and the legs and top)
will expand and stress the screws holding the support. The shelf will not
expand any more,or stress the support anymore, just because it is screwed.
That would not be true if this were August, since then I would have exactly
the opposite problem; but is it January.

(Thinking about it now, I could probably have avoided the problem by simply
making the shelf 1/16" narrower everything else. Does that make sense?)

So, where is the wood movement that I am not considering?
(I haven't put the top on yet, and am undecided about gluing it.)

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a butternut shelf screwed between the legs of a table with pocket
> screws. Since that is not particularly secure, I put a support under it,
> also between the legs. To avoid problems with wood movement, I made the
> grain run the same as the shelf; actually I just used cutoffs from
trimming
> the shelf. So, while it is better, it still isn't too great.
>
> I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
support
> with grain running the other direction (across the shelf). Because of the
> improved grain direction and the improved material, it will be many times
> stronger.
> I figure I can do this because, according to my chart, walnut moves
> grainwise almost as much as butternut does cross grain. And if anyone
> notices the different wood, it will simply look like a design accent.
>
> Is this idea sound?
>
Certainly, if you make the holes on either end oversize to allow for
movement.

BTW, you need a new chart. Might I suggest
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch03.pdf They'll let you
know that wood in general moves 0.1% overall along the grain while your
butternut moves ~ .2% per EMC percentage point tangentially (6.4/30%). EMC
summer of 15%, EMC winter of 6% means more than an an eighth per foot.

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> I have a butternut shelf screwed between the legs of a table with
pocket
> >> screws. Since that is not particularly secure, I put a support under
it,
> >> also between the legs. To avoid problems with wood movement, I made
the
> >> grain run the same as the shelf; actually I just used cutoffs from
> > trimming
> >> the shelf. So, while it is better, it still isn't too great.
> >>
> >> I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
> > support
> >> with grain running the other direction (across the shelf). Because of
> >> the
> >> improved grain direction and the improved material, it will be many
times
> >> stronger.
> >> I figure I can do this because, according to my chart, walnut moves
> >> grainwise almost as much as butternut does cross grain. And if anyone
> >> notices the different wood, it will simply look like a design accent.
> >>
> >> Is this idea sound?
> >>
> > Certainly, if you make the holes on either end oversize to allow for
> > movement.
> >
> > BTW, you need a new chart. Might I suggest
> > http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch03.pdf They'll let
> > you
> > know that wood in general moves 0.1% overall along the grain while your
> > butternut moves ~ .2% per EMC percentage point tangentially (6.4/30%).
> > EMC
> > summer of 15%, EMC winter of 6% means more than an an eighth per foot.
> >
> If I am reading it correctly, table 3-5, butternut moves 6.4% tangentially
> and walnut moves 5.5% radially, for a difference of 0.9%.
> That is closer than the radial differences of most woods, and everyone
says
> to ignore movement radially. (Of course, everyone could be wrong.)
>
> We must be reading different charts, because table 3-5 says butternut is
> very stable, while your figures show it is very unstable. What table are
> your figures from?
>
>

Once again, having difficulty interpreting your question. I see a long
piece with grain running E-W prospectively screwed to a flat piece with the
grain running N-S. I interpret cross-grain as tangential, long grain as
along the piece.

The figures from 3-5 represent the average from ~30% MC - the fiber
saturation point - where wood begins to shrink, to zero MC - oven dry.
Thus you take the percentages, divide by 30 to get the % for a 1% change,
multiply for total change.


Look at 3-1, where A is influenced mostly by radial, B by tangential
shrinkage. The virtually shrinkless dimension is along both, not across.
If you put a long-grain rail across a tangential, or even radial grain
board, you'll want to allow for the movement as indicated.

In woodworking, success allows for the movement by fixing the wood where we
want the relationship to be unchanging, and "floating" the other attachment
points.

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Look at 3-1, where A is influenced mostly by radial, B by tangential
> > shrinkage. The virtually shrinkless dimension is along both, not
across.
>
> You are correct, I was confused. Thank you for pointing it out to me. My
> chart isn't wrong; I just didn't understand it. In fact, my chart says
1/8"
> over a foot, which is what you got also.
>
> But, the text with my chart ("Wood" by Fine Woodworking) says that the
> movement is reduced by half when varnished; so that is 1/16" over the
12"
> shelf.
>
> The problem is that both the cross grain butternut shelf (fortunately most
> of the grain is radial) and the ripped walnut are pocket screwed to the
> legs. The shelf can't expand its 1/16" without putting stress on the
> support's screws.
>
> The screws have 10 threads per inch. If I back each screw off a half
turn,
> that will be putting 1/10" of slack into the supports; so when the shelves
> swell, they will not stress the support.
>
> Does THIS make sense?
>
> Ream the pocket screw holes. That's what I'd do.

The movement is not reduced by anything, the wood is just slower on the
uptake and release over the seasons. Wood fiber swells to the water
available. Varnish just limits how much is available how fast. Lesson there
is to use the same finish in the same thickness in and out or suffer the
consequences. Even varnished, if you put 'em in a basement over the summer
with high humidity they'll swell like hell anyway. Not to mention what'll
happen here where the dewpoint is at minus 32. Four humans, two dogs and
dinner can't make 35% RH inside. Time to dry a load of clothes....

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for posting that link toller. It's much easier to consider these
> things with the visual. I would not worry about the cross grain condition
> presented by the shelf supports on the ends of the table. Remember that
the
> movement numbers you see in the charts are for unconstrained wood and you
> have wood that is constrained by the assembly. Look at the table in your
> kitchen for example - it has this very same construction. Look at styles
> and rails in a typical face frame construction - same thing. Cross grain
> construction does not make an absolute problem condition.
>
> --

The movement numbers are for expansion and contraction of wood fiber with
changes in RH. If they compress against frame members and blow them apart -
what could happen if the lower shelf isn't allowed a relief at the ends, and
always happens with mitered solid stock, it's shaky table. If restrained at
either end and seeking relief from lower moisture, the board splits and
becomes unsightly.

Since it's easily prevented, it seems almost ridiculous not to anticipate
and allow. As I said earlier, that's what woodworking is about - the wood.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > The movement numbers are for expansion and contraction of wood fiber
with
> > changes in RH. If they compress against frame members and blow them
> apart -
> > what could happen if the lower shelf isn't allowed a relief at the ends,
> and
> > always happens with mitered solid stock, it's shaky table. If
restrained
> at
> > either end and seeking relief from lower moisture, the board splits and
> > becomes unsightly.
> >
> > Since it's easily prevented, it seems almost ridiculous not to
anticipate
> > and allow. As I said earlier, that's what woodworking is about - the
> wood.
> >
> >
> >
>
> What about things like production tables, etc. then George? The
> construction that toller posted the pic of is common place construction.
> --

Imagine if you look you'll see this is not the case. For instance, the
lower shelf of Toller's sofa table, made with a single board of butternut,
if tightly held between the legs has a 50/50 chance of popping or loosening
the joinery as it expands beyond its ability to compress what holds it and
itself. Simple remedy is good woodworking, either pinning center on the
cross-grained rail and floating both ends with a sixteenth gap by making
oversize holes for the pocket screws, or realizing that there will be a
front - where the drawers open - and a rear, pinning flush to the leg at the
front, floating the center and rear, allowing the full eighth expansion
where it's not noticeable.

Using your example of frame and panel construction, which, I assume, you
know is designed to maintain virtually constant exterior dimension through
changes in MC, you always want to finish the panels prior to framing them,
because they can shrink and reveal bare wood at their edges. If made too
large when dry, they can find the weakest glue joint in the frame and
destroy it, or finding themselves the weaker, compression set their fiber
and develop a rattle. A competent woodworker anticipates and compensates
for all these.

I'm sure you've seen your share of tables with split tops (and chairs with
split seats) which were restrained without regard for wood movement, as well
as those with ears from having well-varnished tops and virtually finish-free
bottoms. Then there are the open corners on mitered wood ... the list is
endless. It's never been my objective in woodworking to emulate the shoddy
manufacturing processes of commercial work. Therefore I use techniques
designed to accommodate future movement.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> This is where I see his construction differently, as viewed on the web
site.
> He has a support between the front and rear legs upon which the shelf
sits.
> I would agree that if it were simply a piece of butternut, he'd have
> problems without a doubt. What he has though, with the support screwed in
> place, is very much like the standard construction of any dresser or other
> piece of furniture. Secured to the support, the butternut is not going to
> move as it would if it were simply sitting exposed to the changes in
> climate. Such is the nature of furniture construction. All furniture is
> constructed with cross grain construction and it is constructed in a rigid
> manner. Yet - it does not expand and contract so as to create a wobbly
> piece after a few cycles.
>

You are - sadly - mistaken.

Get a good book on woodworking. To begin with _Understanding Wood_ by R.
Bruce Hoadley.

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> (Thinking about it now, I could probably have avoided the problem by
simply
> making the shelf 1/16" narrower everything else. Does that make sense?)
>
> So, where is the wood movement that I am not considering?
> (I haven't put the top on yet, and am undecided about gluing it.)
>
>
Remember that link to the fpl site, wood handbook chapter three? Look at
the orientation of the annual rings and the characteristic direction of
movement. Your top and or shelf are going to do some cupping and making
ugly unless you change you design. Not to mention - again - the instability
of a pocket screw leg into a plank.

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I am familiar with alternating ring direction to avoid cupping.
> Interestingly, a book I just read (returned it to the library today) says
> that you should have all the rings oriented the same so that the grain
> across the panel matchs better than it would if you alternated. He didn't
> think alternating rings gained any stability.
>
>
You don't avoid cupping by alternating ring direction, what you supposedly
avoid is cumulative errors resulting in one big bow. Not so, of course.
Geometry doesn't work like that. Match heart to heart, sap to sapwood for
best display, and if you're just screwing the two sides of the top, which is
what the message implied, you have an unsecured middle which will choose its
own way.

Out of curiosity, have you studied any basic woodworking texts? Are you
working from any sort of plan?

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a butternut shelf screwed between the legs of a table with pocket
> screws. Since that is not particularly secure, I put a support under it,
> also between the legs. To avoid problems with wood movement, I made the
> grain run the same as the shelf; actually I just used cutoffs from
trimming
> the shelf. So, while it is better, it still isn't too great.
>
> I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
support
> with grain running the other direction (across the shelf). Because of the
> improved grain direction and the improved material, it will be many times
> stronger.
> I figure I can do this because, according to my chart, walnut moves
> grainwise almost as much as butternut does cross grain. And if anyone
> notices the different wood, it will simply look like a design accent.
>
> Is this idea sound?

Is this because you're still having stability problems with the supports in
there, or because you are exploring a bit and just want to play with the
artistic side of this? The potential for wood movement does not, by itself
necessarily make for instability. In what way did you attach the supports
you mentioned, to the table legs?
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I am concerned about it pulling the screws out on the walnut support. It
is
> only a tenth of an inch, unconstrained, but it could still be a problem if
> it actually pulls the screw out a hair and ruins the threading in the
wood.
>

Well, let's look at it from this standpoint toller. A typical raised panel
door is very similar construction to your support and leg pieces. In fact,
so is the upper portion of your piece. There is a piece of wood floating in
the raised panel door and that relieves stresses which could occur, as long
as the panel does not swell and become a very tight fit in the groove. Most
do swell to become a very tight fit though, and in fact they really don't
float very freely at time of fabrication - or else you'd have a sloppy
raised panel door. In this door, you have a very good glue joint, but
that's all you have is a glue joint. How many have you seen that have
racked apart due to the cross grain construction? Likewise, do you expect
your upper part of your project to suffer expansion/contraction problems?
You do have cross grain construction there as well.

> I backed off the screw tension to put a tenth of an inch of slop into the
> supports. That "ought" to protect it. I will tighten them up in August.
> Of course, they ought to be tight in August; right.

I've seen a lot of pocket screwed pieces and they sure seem to work, though
I problably would not have used that approach. Not that it means anything.
A lot of times I do things out of habit and not because it's necessarily a
better way. Again, they hold. I'm not a believer in backing off screws.
Maybe I'm wrong with this but I believe that if you give room, more room
will be created over time.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The movement numbers are for expansion and contraction of wood fiber with
> changes in RH. If they compress against frame members and blow them
apart -
> what could happen if the lower shelf isn't allowed a relief at the ends,
and
> always happens with mitered solid stock, it's shaky table. If restrained
at
> either end and seeking relief from lower moisture, the board splits and
> becomes unsightly.
>
> Since it's easily prevented, it seems almost ridiculous not to anticipate
> and allow. As I said earlier, that's what woodworking is about - the
wood.
>
>
>

What about things like production tables, etc. then George? The
construction that toller posted the pic of is common place construction.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I have a butternut shelf screwed between the legs of a table with pocket
>> screws. Since that is not particularly secure, I put a support under it,
>> also between the legs. To avoid problems with wood movement, I made the
>> grain run the same as the shelf; actually I just used cutoffs from
> trimming
>> the shelf. So, while it is better, it still isn't too great.
>>
>> I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
> support
>> with grain running the other direction (across the shelf). Because of
>> the
>> improved grain direction and the improved material, it will be many times
>> stronger.
>> I figure I can do this because, according to my chart, walnut moves
>> grainwise almost as much as butternut does cross grain. And if anyone
>> notices the different wood, it will simply look like a design accent.
>>
>> Is this idea sound?
>
> Is this because you're still having stability problems with the supports
> in
> there, or because you are exploring a bit and just want to play with the
> artistic side of this? The potential for wood movement does not, by
> itself
> necessarily make for instability. In what way did you attach the supports
> you mentioned, to the table legs?
> --
The issue is not movement, but strength. The supports are attached to the
table legs by pocket screws.

Between the legs, both the shelf and the support are crossgrain, and
butternut is very weak cross grain. A more rigid attachment would have
helped; had I planned better, I would have glued the support to the shelf,
and then glued the assembly to the legs with biscuits. But I assembled the
legs to the upper case body first, so gluing the shelf in afterwards wasn't
going to happen.

So, I have to try to clean up afterwards and make a strong rigid assembly.
I don't have any figures, but I bet a lengthwise walnut support is 5X as
strong as a crossgrain butternut support, as well as being substantially
more rigid.

I did some tests and found that two pocket screws in butternut will hole my
full weight, as long as the structure is rigid. As soon as it moves a
little, it breaks apart.

And yes it is a bit artistic. I generally only get artistic when forced
into it by practical matters.

Thanks.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:46:13 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

... snip

>Forget today's "commercially" made furniture, regardless of its "quality"
>... a good bet is that much of it won't be around in 100 years, and it is
>doubtful that most of it is actually "solid wood", despite its appearance.
>

In today's vernacular, "solid wood" often means plywood plus a few pieces
of hardwood face-frames. Kind of a different meaning to "solid" wood than
most of us would use.


>You will be far better off learning what you can from those pieces which
>have stood the test of time.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Thanks for posting that link toller. It's much easier to consider these
>> things with the visual. I would not worry about the cross grain
>> condition
>> presented by the shelf supports on the ends of the table. Remember that
> the
>> movement numbers you see in the charts are for unconstrained wood and you
>> have wood that is constrained by the assembly. Look at the table in your
>> kitchen for example - it has this very same construction. Look at styles
>> and rails in a typical face frame construction - same thing. Cross grain
>> construction does not make an absolute problem condition.
>>
>> --
>
> The movement numbers are for expansion and contraction of wood fiber with
> changes in RH. If they compress against frame members and blow them
> apart -
> what could happen if the lower shelf isn't allowed a relief at the ends,
> and
> always happens with mitered solid stock, it's shaky table. If restrained
> at
> either end and seeking relief from lower moisture, the board splits and
> becomes unsightly.
>
> Since it's easily prevented, it seems almost ridiculous not to anticipate
> and allow. As I said earlier, that's what woodworking is about - the
> wood.
>
I am concerned about it pulling the screws out on the walnut support. It is
only a tenth of an inch, unconstrained, but it could still be a problem if
it actually pulls the screw out a hair and ruins the threading in the wood.

I backed off the screw tension to put a tenth of an inch of slop into the
supports. That "ought" to protect it. I will tighten them up in August.
Of course, they ought to be tight in August; right.

I was a little concerned about the straight of butternut, so I used oak
everywhere that wouldn't be visible; going as far as making the pieces
showing in the front out of oak with an outside piece of butternut glued on.

I didn't float the top because all grain on the cabinet section runs the
same as the top. I did glue the sides together, and when they are
glued/screwed to the top, it should be pretty solid. In fact, with the top
off, it is surprisingly rigid.

"toller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Hey toller, can you post a pic of your table over on ABPW?
> > --
> My internet company doesn't do ABPW, but I already posted a picture of it
on
> my website to show the person I am building it for.
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg

Sorry to say it, but your design, as shown in the photo is probably not the
best for longevity. :(

Then again, it may last forever.

Next time consider using M&T joints for the "rail" (your "support") between
the legs, and attaching a "cleat" to the inside of the rail as the shelf
support. Then attach the shelf to the cleat with screws in oversize or
slotted holes.

Here is poor picture, but a much better way, but not the only one, to attach
a lower shelf between table legs:

http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/ShelfSupport.JPG

Be particularly wary of the advice you've received in this thread to
"ignore" cross grain situations ... it is simply wrong and misguided.

Hell, just ask to see some samples of their work before making up your mind
to rely on such advice.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"toller" wrote in message

> I think I have figured out the communications problem. No matter how many
> times I say that the side panel is solid butternut with the grain running
> the same direction as the top, people see it as a crossgrain problem
because
> aprons normally have grain running the opposite direction.

Nope ... didn't even worry about that in my replies. My points, IIRC, were
limited to supporting the shelf, any cross-grain situation at that point
considering the wide shelf, and attaching the top.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

>
> Next time consider using M&T joints for the "rail" (your "support")
> between
> the legs, and attaching a "cleat" to the inside of the rail as the shelf
> support. Then attach the shelf to the cleat with screws in oversize or
> slotted holes.
>
Yes, a M&T is clearly the best way to do the support, but by the time I
realized I had a problem the side and legs were all glued up.

But why not screw to the two legs, and put a support under the shelf,
attached to the legs in mortises; attaching the the shelf to the support
with the slotted holes?
That is what I thought about doing before I decided it wasn't practical at
that point of construction. (another problem was that I had never done a
mortise and tenon before; but I've never done a dovetailed drawer before,
and there are 6 of them in it...)

"toller" wrote in message

> But why not screw to the two legs, and put a support under the shelf,
> attached to the legs in mortises; attaching the the shelf to the support
> with the slotted holes?

Sorry, I am not sure I understand you ... the first eight words seem to
contradict the rest of the concept?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Hey toller, can you post a pic of your table over on ABPW?
> > --
> My internet company doesn't do ABPW, but I already posted a picture of it
on
> my website to show the person I am building it for.
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
>
> You can see the area I am concerned about in the lower left. The shelf is
> butternut, the grain goes the length of the table. The shelf support is
> walnut, grain goes perpendicular to the shelf.
>
> The grain in the side panel is the same direction as the shelf and the
top.
>
> (The top is on temporarily, just to show proportions. It still has to
have
> a finished edge put on it.)
>
>

Thanks for posting that link toller. It's much easier to consider these
things with the visual. I would not worry about the cross grain condition
presented by the shelf supports on the ends of the table. Remember that the
movement numbers you see in the charts are for unconstrained wood and you
have wood that is constrained by the assembly. Look at the table in your
kitchen for example - it has this very same construction. Look at styles
and rails in a typical face frame construction - same thing. Cross grain
construction does not make an absolute problem condition.

There - having said all of that... this thread has gone on long enough that
I need to ask - were you originally posing your questions because you are
concerned for cross grain construction as a principle, or because you are
dealing with a problem? If memory serves, you did not state a real problem,
but more of a concern. But then again, I've often had to admit that my
memory was the second thing to go...


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"toller" wrote in message

> However, my belief is that grainwise walnut and crossgrain butternut are
> close enough in movement that it is not an issue.

Don't count on any cross grain situation not causing some trouble over time
unless you fasten the two correctly. It does not have to be involved. As has
been suggested, if you are going to use screws, just slot the screw holes in
the walnut supports in the direction of anticipated movement of the
butternut shelf and you should be fine. If you make the screwholes oversize,
consider using a washer under the head of the screw if it doesn't show.

> If I am wrong, I can
> sacrifice the screw between the two; the walnut support will still be much
> stronger than the butternut.

You are absolutely correct, any wood span should be stronger with the grain
running lengthwise.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> (Thinking about it now, I could probably have avoided the problem by
> simply
>> making the shelf 1/16" narrower everything else. Does that make sense?)
>>
>> So, where is the wood movement that I am not considering?
>> (I haven't put the top on yet, and am undecided about gluing it.)
>>
>>
> Remember that link to the fpl site, wood handbook chapter three? Look at
> the orientation of the annual rings and the characteristic direction of
> movement. Your top and or shelf are going to do some cupping and making
> ugly unless you change you design. Not to mention - again - the
> instability
> of a pocket screw leg into a plank.
>
I can't disagree that the shelf is at risk, but why should the top cup? It
is firmly attached to the body on all four sides. If it cups, then anything
can.
I am familiar with alternating ring direction to avoid cupping.
Interestingly, a book I just read (returned it to the library today) says
that you should have all the rings oriented the same so that the grain
across the panel matchs better than it would if you alternated. He didn't
think alternating rings gained any stability.

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I have a butternut shelf screwed between the legs of a table with pocket
>> screws. Since that is not particularly secure, I put a support under it,
>> also between the legs. To avoid problems with wood movement, I made the
>> grain run the same as the shelf; actually I just used cutoffs from
> trimming
>> the shelf. So, while it is better, it still isn't too great.
>>
>> I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
> support
>> with grain running the other direction (across the shelf). Because of
>> the
>> improved grain direction and the improved material, it will be many times
>> stronger.
>> I figure I can do this because, according to my chart, walnut moves
>> grainwise almost as much as butternut does cross grain. And if anyone
>> notices the different wood, it will simply look like a design accent.
>>
>> Is this idea sound?
>>
> Certainly, if you make the holes on either end oversize to allow for
> movement.
>
> BTW, you need a new chart. Might I suggest
> http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch03.pdf They'll let
> you
> know that wood in general moves 0.1% overall along the grain while your
> butternut moves ~ .2% per EMC percentage point tangentially (6.4/30%).
> EMC
> summer of 15%, EMC winter of 6% means more than an an eighth per foot.
>
If I am reading it correctly, table 3-5, butternut moves 6.4% tangentially
and walnut moves 5.5% radially, for a difference of 0.9%.
That is closer than the radial differences of most woods, and everyone says
to ignore movement radially. (Of course, everyone could be wrong.)

We must be reading different charts, because table 3-5 says butternut is
very stable, while your figures show it is very unstable. What table are
your figures from?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" wrote in message
>
>> If I am missing something, I would sincerely appreciate having it pointed
>> out. I probably won't glue because it will be messy and I don't think it
> is
>> necessary, but I can't see why it would hurt.
>
> We seem to be chasing our tail here ... If you say so.
>
> There is not enough detail in the picture to tell the grain direction on
> what are generally the tables "aprons" upon which the table top rests.
> What
> appears to be an "apron" in the photo may indeed be a solid piece of wood
> spanning the structure under the table top. (Indeed, I hope that is the
> case
> if you are planning on glue as your method of table top fastening.)
>
> The problem with giving any satisfactory advice, besides inadequate detail
> in the photos and confusing descriptions, is that your table appears to
> not
> use generally accepted table construction methods.
>
I think I have figured out the communications problem. No matter how many
times I say that the side panel is solid butternut with the grain running
the same direction as the top, people see it as a crossgrain problem because
aprons normally have grain running the opposite direction.

Bookcases always have side with vertical grain, and that is how I built
this; rather than like a table.
It may be unconventional, but if it works for bookcases, why wouldn't it
work for this? The front has some cross grain to the sides, but since since
nothing is wider than 1", that can't matter; and the back will be plywood.

I will post a picture of it when I am done.

"toller" wrote in message ...

>> Sorry, I left a word out.
> Why not screw the shelf to the two legs

We're talking solid wood here, not laminate or veneer, right?

Why? You already know that solid wood of that width needs room to expand and
contract with seasonal changes.

A design which calls for "screwing the shelf to the legs", unless I am
missing something in your description, does not appear to be taking the
dimensional instability of the solid wood into account.

As a furniture maker, you do that at your eventual peril.

>and put a support under the shelf,
> attached to the legs in mortises; attaching the the shelf to the support
> with the slotted holes?

A better way, as in the posted picture link, is to attach the shelf support
to the rail between the legs, leaving room for the shelf between the legs to
expand and contract. This also has the subjective benefit of hiding the end
grain of the shelf and giving a seamless look to the joinery.

Alternately, if the design calls for the shelf to be supported by the rails,
and the shelf is solid wood, you would be better off not "screwing the shelf
to the legs" in any manner, instead leaving space for expansion and
contraction of the solid wood shelf that you already know is a distinct
possbility. Just incorporate that space into your design, and be sure to
"join" the shelf to the rail with joinery that takes wood movement, and the
cross-grain, into account.

One way to pick up on time tested methods is to study the construction of
antique furniture. You will notice that the many antiques still in use have
similiar joinery methods ... with good reason.

Forget today's "commercially" made furniture, regardless of its "quality"
... a good bet is that much of it won't be around in 100 years, and it is
doubtful that most of it is actually "solid wood", despite its appearance.

You will be far better off learning what you can from those pieces which
have stood the test of time.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

> racked apart due to the cross grain construction? Likewise, do you expect
> your upper part of your project to suffer expansion/contraction problems?
> You do have cross grain construction there as well.

No, actually I don't. Every bit of grain on the upper part runs parallel to
the top. The only thing that could be considered cross grain would be
drawer slides, and where they are won't be affected by a 1/10" movement.

Well, thats not quite true, the front is crossgrain to the sides, and I will
have to make the drawer fronts a 1/16" larger than I might like to
accomodate summer swelling. I saw that as a tradeoff for not having to have
a floating top.

> I've seen a lot of pocket screwed pieces and they sure seem to work,
> though
> I problably would not have used that approach. Not that it means
> anything.
> A lot of times I do things out of habit and not because it's necessarily a
> better way. Again, they hold. I'm not a believer in backing off screws.
> Maybe I'm wrong with this but I believe that if you give room, more room
> will be created over time.
>
I pocket screwed everything until I got a biscuit joiner. A year ago I
would have pocket screwed the sides, but now they are biscuited.
So far all of my pocket screwed joints have held up.

No, I am not thrilled with the back off method; had I planned better I would
have build the shelf differently.

I have a 25 yo cherry table and a 15 yo oak table. Both are pocket screwed
to the aprons, and both are fine. The longest crossgrain joint is about 20
inches; so apparently they can absorb the stress without detereorating.

>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:36:42 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Hey toller, can you post a pic of your table over on ABPW?
> >> --
> >My internet company doesn't do ABPW, but I already posted a picture of it
on
> >my website to show the person I am building it for.
> >http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
> >
> >You can see the area I am concerned about in the lower left. The shelf
is
> >butternut, the grain goes the length of the table. The shelf support is
> >walnut, grain goes perpendicular to the shelf.
> >
> >The grain in the side panel is the same direction as the shelf and the
top.
> >
> >(The top is on temporarily, just to show proportions. It still has to
have
> >a finished edge put on it.)
> >
>
>
> float the top, the side panels and the shelf. put solid stringers
> between the drawers, at the top and bottom of the side panels to match
> the ones supporting the shelf. and use a better joint than pocket
> screws.

Hey!!! I was asking questions so we could get to this point. Stand in line
dambit! Now you went and ruined the punchline.

More seriously, I'm not sure I would have floated the top and the shelf, but
I'm not saying I disagree with that. I've not had problems with securing a
top or a shelf on this type of piece, so I never encountered the need to
float them.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"toller" wrote in message

> If I am missing something, I would sincerely appreciate having it pointed
> out. I probably won't glue because it will be messy and I don't think it
is
> necessary, but I can't see why it would hurt.

We seem to be chasing our tail here ... If you say so.

There is not enough detail in the picture to tell the grain direction on
what are generally the tables "aprons" upon which the table top rests. What
appears to be an "apron" in the photo may indeed be a solid piece of wood
spanning the structure under the table top. (Indeed, I hope that is the case
if you are planning on glue as your method of table top fastening.)

The problem with giving any satisfactory advice, besides inadequate detail
in the photos and confusing descriptions, is that your table appears to not
use generally accepted table construction methods.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, had you used more
conventional, and time tested, table construction methods, there would be no
question about what would work and what wouldn't ... but I am sure that you
are aware of that.

At this point, it you feel you have the wood movement issue whipped, just do
what you think will work based on your research ... and time will be the
final judge.

In any event, good luck in finishing your project ... I do like the look of
the piece and hope it works out for you.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Primarily the sides are holding the legs together, though the top could
>> probably adequate also. Was my 1,2, 3 ambiguous?
>
> Aren't I seeing a support in there also, running between the front leg and
> the back leg? (Under the shelf).
>
Yes, that is the famous support that I was asking about at the very
beginning of the thread. It is a cross grain walnut support I put in after
deciding the parallel grain butternut support was inadequate.
Someone pointed out correctly that I was confused and even at 12", a
crossgrain support was not safe. So I backed out the screws attaching it,
to accomodate a little movement.
Then the thread started getting bizarre.
It is the only crossgrain element in the entire table. According to my
charts, the movement between the butternut shelf and the walnut support will
be no more than 1/16" over 12". So slightly loose screws ought to be enough
to handle that. Or so I believe.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" wrote in message
>
>> The top and the sides have paralllel grain. The top and the front and
> rear
>> aprons have parallel grain. Why would I want to float it? With all the
>> grain running the same, why would anything move?
>
> You said your were going to glue the top on? Regardless of the underlying
> grain direction, that is generally not a good solution.
>
> Have you heard of "figure eight fasteners" for attaching wood table tops?
> Check'em out.
>
Yeh, I know about figure eight fasteners; but I am perfectly serious about
this question. If the grain runs the same as the top on all 4 sides (and
all the wood is butternut, bought at the same time, and stored together for
several weeks); what is going to move? It is no different than a glued up
board, or any other matched grain joint, is it?

If I am missing something, I would sincerely appreciate having it pointed
out. I probably won't glue because it will be messy and I don't think it is
necessary, but I can't see why it would hurt.

"toller" wrote in message

> > A design which calls for "screwing the shelf to the legs", unless I am
> > missing something in your description, does not appear to be taking the
> > dimensional instability of the solid wood into account.
> >
> Maybe I am not understanding the problem here. If I am, I would be
grateful
> for an explanation.
>
> The two legs are held together by:
> 1) the top, which is parallel to the leg grain (pocket screwed, glue?)
> 2) the side panels, parallel to the leg grain (glued)
> 3) the shelf, parallel to the leg grain (pocket screwed)

> (Thinking about it now, I could probably have avoided the problem by
simply
> making the shelf 1/16" narrower everything else. Does that make sense?)

Using a more conventional method of table construction I would say that
would be one way to deal with it ... but since the shelf is apparently what
is holding the legs together?

> So, where is the wood movement that I am not considering?
> (I haven't put the top on yet, and am undecided about gluing it.)

From what you've described thus far, you might want to consider floating the
top.

BTW, went to look at the picture again to try and better answer your
questions, but it appears to have been removed.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:36:42 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> Hey toller, can you post a pic of your table over on ABPW?
>> --
>My internet company doesn't do ABPW, but I already posted a picture of it on
>my website to show the person I am building it for.
>http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg
>
>You can see the area I am concerned about in the lower left. The shelf is
>butternut, the grain goes the length of the table. The shelf support is
>walnut, grain goes perpendicular to the shelf.
>
>The grain in the side panel is the same direction as the shelf and the top.
>
>(The top is on temporarily, just to show proportions. It still has to have
>a finished edge put on it.)
>


float the top, the side panels and the shelf. put solid stringers
between the drawers, at the top and bottom of the side panels to match
the ones supporting the shelf. and use a better joint than pocket
screws.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" wrote in message
>
>> But why not screw to the two legs, and put a support under the shelf,
>> attached to the legs in mortises; attaching the the shelf to the support
>> with the slotted holes?
>
> Sorry, I am not sure I understand you ... the first eight words seem to
> contradict the rest of the concept?
>
Sorry, I left a word out.
Why not screw the shelf to the two legs, and put a support under the shelf,
attached to the legs in mortises; attaching the the shelf to the support
with the slotted holes?

The shelf, with grain the same as the sides and top can be screwed between
the legs.
The support, with grain perpendicular to everything else, mortised into the
legs. And screw the shelf to the support with slotted holes' though they
could probably be left out.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:46:13 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
> >Forget today's "commercially" made furniture, regardless of its "quality"
> >... a good bet is that much of it won't be around in 100 years, and it is
> >doubtful that most of it is actually "solid wood", despite its
appearance.
> >
>
> In today's vernacular, "solid wood" often means plywood plus a few
pieces
> of hardwood face-frames. Kind of a different meaning to "solid" wood than
> most of us would use.

Everyone in this conversation is well aware of the distinction, thanks.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Imagine if you look you'll see this is not the case. For instance, the
> lower shelf of Toller's sofa table, made with a single board of butternut,
> if tightly held between the legs has a 50/50 chance of popping or
loosening
> the joinery as it expands beyond its ability to compress what holds it and
> itself.

This is where I see his construction differently, as viewed on the web site.
He has a support between the front and rear legs upon which the shelf sits.
I would agree that if it were simply a piece of butternut, he'd have
problems without a doubt. What he has though, with the support screwed in
place, is very much like the standard construction of any dresser or other
piece of furniture. Secured to the support, the butternut is not going to
move as it would if it were simply sitting exposed to the changes in
climate. Such is the nature of furniture construction. All furniture is
constructed with cross grain construction and it is constructed in a rigid
manner. Yet - it does not expand and contract so as to create a wobbly
piece after a few cycles.


> Simple remedy is good woodworking, either pinning center on the
> cross-grained rail and floating both ends with a sixteenth gap by making
> oversize holes for the pocket screws, or realizing that there will be a
> front - where the drawers open - and a rear, pinning flush to the leg at
the
> front, floating the center and rear, allowing the full eighth expansion
> where it's not noticeable.

I fully agree that this would work, but I have to keep going back to ask the
same question - and I'm not trying to be difficult with you George. I'd be
reluctant to float the board as I'd fear cupping or bowing. Those two
possiblities are something I'd consider to be more likely. Look at a
dresser. It has to contend with cross grain expansion as much as any other
piece of furniture does but the top is not floated. It is secured to the
frame rails. Since however, he's fitting a piece of wood in between the
legs, I could see where a very slight shave might be OK, to allow for some
movement, but even that I'm not sure is necessary, since the shelf will be
united with the support and the support being long grain, will limit the
movement of the shelf.

>
> Using your example of frame and panel construction, which, I assume, you
> know is designed to maintain virtually constant exterior dimension through
> changes in MC, you always want to finish the panels prior to framing them,
> because they can shrink and reveal bare wood at their edges. If made too
> large when dry, they can find the weakest glue joint in the frame and
> destroy it, or finding themselves the weaker, compression set their fiber
> and develop a rattle. A competent woodworker anticipates and compensates
> for all these.

Precisely the point that I made. The panel, while floating is only doing so
in that it's not glued in. It's not loose though, when it's fabricated. In
other words it won't rattle about. Yet - it does not push the joints apart
as it absorbs moisture. It is constrained by the rest of the wood around
it.

>
> I'm sure you've seen your share of tables with split tops (and chairs with
> split seats) which were restrained without regard for wood movement, as
well
> as those with ears from having well-varnished tops and virtually
finish-free
> bottoms. Then there are the open corners on mitered wood ... the list is
> endless. It's never been my objective in woodworking to emulate the
shoddy
> manufacturing processes of commercial work. Therefore I use techniques
> designed to accommodate future movement.
>
>

As well, I think it could be said of everyone here that they pursue proper
woodworking techniques. Yes, I've seen bad fabrication, but I've also seen
excellent fabrication. I tend to base my observations, my practices and my
thoughts on those examples of excellent fabrication. Basically, a wordy way
of saying "ditto".
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Primarily the sides are holding the legs together, though the top could
> probably adequate also. Was my 1,2, 3 ambiguous?

Aren't I seeing a support in there also, running between the front leg and
the back leg? (Under the shelf).


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"toller" wrote in message

> The top and the sides have paralllel grain. The top and the front and
rear
> aprons have parallel grain. Why would I want to float it? With all the
> grain running the same, why would anything move?

You said your were going to glue the top on? Regardless of the underlying
grain direction, that is generally not a good solution.

Have you heard of "figure eight fasteners" for attaching wood table tops?
Check'em out.

http://www.woodworkersshop.com/Figure_8_Table_Top_Fasteners.htm


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Be particularly wary of the advice you've received in this thread to
> "ignore" cross grain situations ... it is simply wrong and misguided.
>

He received no such advice.

> Hell, just ask to see some samples of their work before making up your
mind
> to rely on such advice.
>

Or look at tons of commercially available high quality furniture.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

> Look at 3-1, where A is influenced mostly by radial, B by tangential
> shrinkage. The virtually shrinkless dimension is along both, not across.

You are correct, I was confused. Thank you for pointing it out to me. My
chart isn't wrong; I just didn't understand it. In fact, my chart says 1/8"
over a foot, which is what you got also.

But, the text with my chart ("Wood" by Fine Woodworking) says that the
movement is reduced by half when varnished; so that is 1/16" over the 12"
shelf.

The problem is that both the cross grain butternut shelf (fortunately most
of the grain is radial) and the ripped walnut are pocket screwed to the
legs. The shelf can't expand its 1/16" without putting stress on the
support's screws.

The screws have 10 threads per inch. If I back each screw off a half turn,
that will be putting 1/10" of slack into the supports; so when the shelves
swell, they will not stress the support.

Does THIS make sense?

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I am familiar with alternating ring direction to avoid cupping.
>> Interestingly, a book I just read (returned it to the library today) says
>> that you should have all the rings oriented the same so that the grain
>> across the panel matchs better than it would if you alternated. He
>> didn't
>> think alternating rings gained any stability.
>>
>>
> You don't avoid cupping by alternating ring direction, what you supposedly
> avoid is cumulative errors resulting in one big bow. Not so, of course.
> Geometry doesn't work like that. Match heart to heart, sap to sapwood for
> best display, and if you're just screwing the two sides of the top, which
> is
> what the message implied, you have an unsecured middle which will choose
> its
> own way.

"why should the top cup? It is firmly attached to the body on all four
sides"
That implies it just screwing two sides of the top with an unsecured middle?
>
> Out of curiosity, have you studied any basic woodworking texts? Are you
> working from any sort of plan?
>
"Interestingly, a book I just read"
Have I studied any basic woodworking texts?
Am I working from any sort of plan?

If you were trying to be helpful before, I appreciate that; but now you are
just randomly argumentative.

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The shelf is pocket screwed to the legs, and the support is pocket screwed
> to the legs.
> The butternut support is also screwed to the shelf. I had planned on
doing
> the same with the replacement walnut support. As a former engineer, I
know
> that stacked beams are substantially more rigid when fastened together.
>
> However, my belief is that grainwise walnut and crossgrain butternut are
> close enough in movement that it is not an issue. If I am wrong, I can
> sacrifice the screw between the two; the walnut support will still be much
> stronger than the butternut.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

Hey toller, can you post a pic of your table over on ABPW?
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "toller" wrote in message ...
>
>>I had a brilliant idea; replace the butternut support with a walnut
>>support with grain running the other direction (across the shelf).
>
>> Is this idea sound?
>
> If I understand your post correctly, your main concern revolves around the
> 'cross grain' situation betwen the shelf and its support(s)?
>
> From your description, the way you attach the supports to the _legs_, if
> you
> are indeed doing so, should be irrelevant for all practical purposes.
>
> If there is no mechanical attachment between the shelf and the new
> supports,
> IOW, no screws, nails, brads, pegs, etc.or glue, and the shelf is just
> sitting on the support(s), then wood movement should not be a problem
> between the two.
>
> However, most any time you create a "cross grain" situation between two
> pieces of wood that are _fastened_ together in some manner, you will need
> to
> address the cross grain situation. There are a number of ways to do this.

The shelf is pocket screwed to the legs, and the support is pocket screwed
to the legs.
The butternut support is also screwed to the shelf. I had planned on doing
the same with the replacement walnut support. As a former engineer, I know
that stacked beams are substantially more rigid when fastened together.

However, my belief is that grainwise walnut and crossgrain butternut are
close enough in movement that it is not an issue. If I am wrong, I can
sacrifice the screw between the two; the walnut support will still be much
stronger than the butternut.

Thanks.

> Hey toller, can you post a pic of your table over on ABPW?
> --
My internet company doesn't do ABPW, but I already posted a picture of it on
my website to show the person I am building it for.
http://www.frontiernet.net/~toller/table.jpg

You can see the area I am concerned about in the lower left. The shelf is
butternut, the grain goes the length of the table. The shelf support is
walnut, grain goes perpendicular to the shelf.

The grain in the side panel is the same direction as the shelf and the top.

(The top is on temporarily, just to show proportions. It still has to have
a finished edge put on it.)