In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
from a tablesaw.
I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
Thoughts?
Dave
I have been cutting glueable edges with my table saw for years. Mainly
because, until now, I have not had a decent jointer. It takes a good blade
and a deliberate, smooth feed through the blade. Quite often, I ended up
making more than one pass to get a good edge. Occasionally I ended up
sweeping a lot of the "glueable edge" off the floor before I got there.
Tomorrow morning I'll finish setting up my new Powermatic 54A. It should be
better than the 50 year old Craftsman 4" it replaced.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the
difference
> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
> from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dave
Yup - though a table saw is potentially capable of turing out a cut
perfectly suitable for glue up. Sometimes I get those, and sometimes I
reach for my plane.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:17:17 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>
>The word "claims".
>
C'mon now - don't be throwing rocks at my
Dumpster-Diving-Find-DeWalt-7623-Last-Years-Model-On-Closeout-At-Toolking-For-$29-Blade...
I read someplace that it was as good as the Forrest 'Dorker II.
Hell, if the 'Dorker II is so damned good, how come they ain't working
on a 'Dorker III model?
I rest my case!
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Huh... If you are infering that if a TS can produce an edge as clean as a
> jointer, the jointer is going to waste time, you are wrong. The jointer
> IS NOT supposed to be used to clean up TS cuts. A jointers primary
> purpose is to Straighten and Flatten Stock. If you are going from the TS
> to the jointer you are doing every thing backwards.
I've seen Norm cut stock on the tablesaw then clean up the edge on the
jointer. He clearly states he is leaving the cut heavy so he can do that.
Think maybe he just can't afford a good blade? ;)
FWIW, every glue up I've done is with the edge from the saw. I seen no
reason to change that.
Even though you may believe that the jointer will win over the table
saw, you also say that if all things are quality, the jointer will be
the best cut still. Well, I have made cuts with my forest blades both
on my CMS and table saw and have been told that the wood I cut was
sanded with a 220 grit sandpaper.
After you have purchased a forest blade, you will wonder why you have a
jointer other than to put a straight edge on rough lumber that you want
to run through your table saw to get two parallel sides that both look
like they have has a 220 grit sandpaper on. Suggestion: get yourself s
forest blade for your table saw and then ask yourself this question.
>TeamCasa wrote
>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the
>difference between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer
>and that of a rip from a tablesaw.
>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades
>are quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will
>still render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time
again.
>Thoughts?
>Dave
--
Woody
Check out my Web Page at:
http://community-1.webtv.net/WoodworkerJoe/WoodworkerJoesInfo
Where you will find:
******** How My Shop Works ******** 5-21-03
* * * Build a $20 DC Separator Can Lid. 1-14-03
* * * DC Relay Box Building Plans. 1-14-03
* * * The Bad Air Your Breath Everyday.1-14-03
* * * What is a Real Woodworker? 2-8-03
* * * Murphy's Woodworking Definitions. 2-8-03
* * * Murphy's Woodworking Laws. 4-6-03
* * * What is the true meaning of life? 1-14-03
* * * Woodworker Shop Signs. 2-8-03
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:47:16 -0500, Robert Galloway
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I used to use a blade on the TS that a trip to the jointer would improve
>upon. Bought the WWII and wouldn't think of going to the jointer most
>of the time because the cut is so smooth. I'm sure other premium blades
>will do the same. You get what you pay for. The middle of the road
>blade didn't equal the jointer. The premium blade betters the jointer.
What are the main differences between a premium blade and, say,
a blade that DeWalt makes (or someone makles for them...) that
DeWalt claims to be very good ?
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0700, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>from a tablesaw.
>
>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Dave
>
>
====================
Whats to think about...your right !
Bob Griffiths
<[email protected]> wrote in message >
> used properly either tool can produce a surface siutable for glue
> adhesion as well as a surface with whatever tool marks there are small
> enough to escape the unaided eye. if you're getting out the magnifying
> glass all bets are off.
>
> a well tuned table saw with a good quality sharp blade is a joy to
> work with....
Agreed.
Dave
Leon said,
> I think it all depends on the quality of the equipment and the user
> technique. So far I have never been able to get my jointer to leave a
> shiny reflective surface on the edge of a board. I see this regularly
> with my TS. And yes, this is along the ripped edge.
If you are unable to get your jointer to improve the edge and the edge is as
Leon describes, why bother. However, my point is, when the situation, wood
condition and other factors leave the edge unsutiable after ripping, a
jointer will solve the problem.
Dave
I'm sure you will enjoy the 54A. It is a very good machine and like any
other essential tool, once you have one, you can not imagine how you managed
before!
Dave
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%ZZcd.5628$EZ.2583@okepread07...
>I have been cutting glueable edges with my table saw for years. Mainly
>because, until now, I have not had a decent jointer. It takes a good blade
>and a deliberate, smooth feed through the blade. Quite often, I ended up
>making more than one pass to get a good edge. Occasionally I ended up
>sweeping a lot of the "glueable edge" off the floor before I got there.
>
> Tomorrow morning I'll finish setting up my new Powermatic 54A. It should
> be better than the 50 year old Craftsman 4" it replaced.
>
>
Joe,
I do have several Forrest blades and they perform very well. I am after-all
an un-repentant tool junkie. I also have other very high quality blades
that out perform the Forrest. (Relax everyone, the differences are very
small and not worth describing in this thread.)
My point was, not whether a table saw could in some cases, produce an edge
that was as good as a jointer, but that time and time again, a jointer will
consistantly produce a better quality surface.
For glue-ups, the table saw can produce in most cases, produce a sutiable
edge. What about the wood that decides not to cooperate?
Dave
"Joe "Woody" Woodpecker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Even though you may believe that the jointer will win over the table
> saw, you also say that if all things are quality, the jointer will be
> the best cut still. Well, I have made cuts with my forest blades both
> on my CMS and table saw and have been told that the wood I cut was
> sanded with a 220 grit sandpaper.
>
> After you have purchased a forest blade, you will wonder why you have a
> jointer other than to put a straight edge on rough lumber that you want
> to run through your table saw to get two parallel sides that both look
> like they have has a 220 grit sandpaper on. Suggestion: get yourself s
> forest blade for your table saw and then ask yourself this question.
>
>
>>TeamCasa wrote
>
>>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the
>>difference between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer
>>and that of a rip from a tablesaw.
>
>>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades
>>are quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will
>>still render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time
> again.
>
>>Thoughts?
>>Dave
>
> --
> Woody
>
>
> Check out my Web Page at:
>
> http://community-1.webtv.net/WoodworkerJoe/WoodworkerJoesInfo
>
> Where you will find:
>
> ******** How My Shop Works ******** 5-21-03
>
> * * * Build a $20 DC Separator Can Lid. 1-14-03
> * * * DC Relay Box Building Plans. 1-14-03
> * * * The Bad Air Your Breath Everyday.1-14-03
> * * * What is a Real Woodworker? 2-8-03
> * * * Murphy's Woodworking Definitions. 2-8-03
> * * * Murphy's Woodworking Laws. 4-6-03
> * * * What is the true meaning of life? 1-14-03
> * * * Woodworker Shop Signs. 2-8-03
>
Alex Feldman wrote:
>
> The jointer, or at least all those I have seen (I wonder if this will
> be one of those why-didn't-I-think-of-that innovations a few years
> down the road) has knives that cut perpindicular to the grain, with no
> shear at all. Depending on the pattern, saw blades can have at least
> a little shear, which should make for a cleaner cut.
>
>
There's a company, the name of which escapes me, that sells jointer
heads that use carbide inserts. The inserts are set so that they cut
the wood at an angle to the grain. No, I'm not talking about Grizzly.
-Peter
"TeamCasa" wrote in message
> I'm sure you will enjoy the 54A. It is a very good machine and like any
> other essential tool, once you have one, you can not imagine how you
managed
> before!
Agreed ... often wonder how/why I did without my 54A. Milling rough stock is
just a fraction of its duty.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
Interesting reading...whereas I religiously make a habit of ripping wide and
then truing-up on the jointer, it now occurs to me that the little fuzzy
surface on the saw-cut may actually provide for a better glue-up than the
jointer produced glass surface. Will have to experiment.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:17:13 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>TeamCasa wrote:
>>>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>>>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>>>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>>
>>>Thoughts?
>
> I think the Freud crosscut blade makes a damn fine cut, and I don't
> imagine the rip blade is inferior in any way. I would think the
> answer would depend on how nice a jointer you were using, but after a
> certain point, I doubt it matters much- they're both excellent.
>
>>In theory yes but I can usually count on some tear out with
>>the jointer whereas the table saw delivers me a glue ready
>>edge without tear out.
>>
>>UA100
>
Couple of thoughts:
The jointer, or at least all those I have seen (I wonder if this will
be one of those why-didn't-I-think-of-that innovations a few years
down the road) has knives that cut perpindicular to the grain, with no
shear at all. Depending on the pattern, saw blades can have at least
a little shear, which should make for a cleaner cut.
Sawblades are usually carbide, jointer knives usually steel. The
steel knives can be sharper at the outset, but will get dull quickly
and then not be as clean.
Usually, the saw blade is going right through the wood, possibly
flexing slightly and marring the cut. I usually have my jointer set
to a depth of 1/64" or less - at that depth, there is never any
tearout, and even with old knives I get a very clean edge.
Unisaw A100 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> TeamCasa wrote:
> >I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> >quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> >render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> >Thoughts?
>
> In theory yes but I can usually count on some tear out with
> the jointer whereas the table saw delivers me a glue ready
> edge without tear out.
>
> UA100
UA100 responds:
>Bridger:
>>spiral cut jointers have been around for a long time. latest thing is
>>indexed tooth cutter heads....
>
>
>
>And don't forget the Uniplane.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3842852358
Scary tools. I note they don't show the cutterhead in the photos. I hadn't
thought of one of these in probably 20 years. OK if used with almost excessive
care, but it's easy to understand why Delta quit making them.
Charlie Self
"There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other
is pulling up." Booker T. Washington
Not a shill for Forrest but...
I used to use a blade on the TS that a trip to the jointer would improve
upon. Bought the WWII and wouldn't think of going to the jointer most
of the time because the cut is so smooth. I'm sure other premium blades
will do the same. You get what you pay for. The middle of the road
blade didn't equal the jointer. The premium blade betters the jointer.
YPYMYTYC>
bob g.
Leon wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I've seen Norm cut stock on the tablesaw then clean up the edge on the
>>jointer. He clearly states he is leaving the cut heavy so he can do that.
>
>
> Yeah I have seen that too. I wonder if he simply does not know any better
> or if he is demonstrating another way to get a smooth edge if your TS is
> not making good cuts. I was taught to never take the board from the saw to
> the jointer and that was from 2 different instructors. For acurate cutting,
> cutting proud and finishing with a jointer just does not make sense.
>
>
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0700, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>from a tablesaw.
>
>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Dave
>
>
This whole discussion strikes me as a bit pointless - just check the
quality of YOUR equipment and use what is best in YOUR shop. All else
is irrelevant.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> All right. Enough. I almost surrender. As I've said in another thread,
> I've never seen the need to own a Forrest blade or any other "name" blade.
> Always found the lesser blade to be sufficient.
If your saw has excessive run out and or is not set up properly, no blade is
going to improve your cut. But if your saw is in good shape and properly
"tuned", you will probably see the difference between a top quality blade
and a so-so blade. Basically the Forrest stays sharp much longer. This
equates to getting better looking cut edges for a longer period of time
between sharpenings. In my case, I simply do not see any tooth marks and
the surface is as smooth as glass regardless if you are ripping or cross
cutting. Naturally there are times that you will see tooth marks but that
is usually because the board not perfectly straight or flat. I seldom if
ever have to sand cut edges any more and IMHO that alone is worth the extra
cost of the Forrest blade.
Snip
as I said, I can often glue up
> right off the saw.
Often glue up right off the saw? Is there another way. LOL I always glue
up right off the saw.
Sometimes I do have to hand plane an edge but that seems
> to be more because I fed the board inconsistently.
This can happen with any blade and especially if the board is not straight
or flat.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I've seen Norm cut stock on the tablesaw then clean up the edge on the
> jointer. He clearly states he is leaving the cut heavy so he can do that.
Yeah I have seen that too. I wonder if he simply does not know any better
or if he is demonstrating another way to get a smooth edge if your TS is
not making good cuts. I was taught to never take the board from the saw to
the jointer and that was from 2 different instructors. For acurate cutting,
cutting proud and finishing with a jointer just does not make sense.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the
> difference between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that
> of a rip from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
I think it all depends on the quality of the equipment and the user
technique. So far I have never been able to get my jointer to leave a shiny
reflective surface on the edge of a board. I see this regularly with my TS.
And yes, this is along the ripped edge.
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> hmm... I have an old sears benchtop saw.... and an old chevy 327 in
> the shed...
> would about 400 horse power be enough?
That's some 327 mac.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Joe "Woody" Woodpecker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Even though you may believe that the jointer will win over the table
> saw, you also say that if all things are quality, the jointer will be
> the best cut still. Well, I have made cuts with my forest blades both
> on my CMS and table saw and have been told that the wood I cut was
> sanded with a 220 grit sandpaper.
>
> After you have purchased a forest blade, you will wonder why you have a
> jointer other than to put a straight edge on rough lumber that you want
> to run through your table saw to get two parallel sides that both look
> like they have has a 220 grit sandpaper on. Suggestion: get yourself s
> forest blade for your table saw and then ask yourself this question.
>
All right. Enough. I almost surrender. As I've said in another thread,
I've never seen the need to own a Forrest blade or any other "name" blade.
Always found the lesser blade to be sufficient. But... I just keep
hearing - well, reading about these named blades, so I have to ask. Just
exactly what are you guys seeing when you go to these blades that I'm
missing out on? I've gotten great life out of my blades over time, I get
cuts that I have considered to be excellent - as I said, I can often glue up
right off the saw. Sometimes I do have to hand plane an edge but that seems
to be more because I fed the board inconsistently. All things are relative
though. Great life, good edges, etc. are all compared to what would result
from, oh say... breaking the board over one's knee. My table saw certainly
provides a nicer edge than that would. More specifically, what have you
guys seen or been impressed with when you went from a blade you were very
please with to a Forrest or another named blade?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bridger:
> I've always wanted a chance to play with one. never even seen one in
>the wild though. any experience with 'em Keeter?
Nope, never even seen one but I share your curiosity.
Typically when I do see one for sale it's always priced
about the same, $200ish. The real down side as I see it
though is getting/finding replacement cutters.
Seems like they get a bad rap all the time though.
UA100
On 18 Oct 2004 18:25:59 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> writes:
>> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades
>> are quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will
>> still render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time
>> again.
>
>A better surface for looking at, or a better surface for glue
>adhesion?
used properly either tool can produce a surface siutable for glue
adhesion as well as a surface with whatever tool marks there are small
enough to escape the unaided eye. if you're getting out the magnifying
glass all bets are off.
a well tuned table saw with a good quality sharp blade is a joy to
work with....
TeamCasa wrote:
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
> from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> Thoughts?
Intuitively, it feels like the jointer should win even in the
best conditions for the tablesaw. Each cut of the jointer is
done by one blade which is a straight line moving to form a
cylinder. You now concatenate very close cylinder surfaces,
so the finish should be very smooth.
With the tablesaw, you achieve the cut plane surface by
concatenating parallel circular lines -- if you move the
wood too fast, it would tend to form grooves (you would have
a surface akin to an old vinyl record -- an LP). If you
move it slowly, it's better, but it still sounds like the
surface should be more irregular than in the other case.
I'm no expert, BTW, but this is what my intuition tells me.
Carlos
--
Nope.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the
difference
> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
> from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
TeamCasa wrote:
>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>Thoughts?
In theory yes but I can usually count on some tear out with
the jointer whereas the table saw delivers me a glue ready
edge without tear out.
UA100
there are several models of glueline ripsaws in the commercial field the most
prevalent being the deihls, these critters achieve a cut line that will rival
jointers and have been around for a lot of years but they depend on the feed
systems to make them that accurate most people use their fence to joint with
and it relies on the opposite edge of the board. there are power feed units for
the medium and large shop model table saws but the can't match the length and
grip of a feed chain. other major considerations are the rigidity of the blade
and mounts, just an observation from a diehl 52 owner
A Diehl is usally not considered a machine sutiable for small shops. I have
used one many times. There is simply no subsitute for HP (The one I used
had 18" blade with 20hp!) and a power feeder.
Dave
"Madeuce50bmg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> there are several models of glueline ripsaws in the commercial field the
> most
> prevalent being the deihls, these critters achieve a cut line that will
> rival
> jointers and have been around for a lot of years but they depend on the
> feed
> systems to make them that accurate most people use their fence to joint
> with
> and it relies on the opposite edge of the board. there are power feed
> units for
> the medium and large shop model table saws but the can't match the length
> and
> grip of a feed chain. other major considerations are the rigidity of the
> blade
> and mounts, just an observation from a diehl 52 owner
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:53:02 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Bridger:
>>spiral cut jointers have been around for a long time. latest thing is
>>indexed tooth cutter heads....
>
>
>
>And don't forget the Uniplane.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3842852358
>
>UA100
I've always wanted a chance to play with one. never even seen one in
the wild though. any experience with 'em Keeter?
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:21:53 -0400, WoodMangler
<[email protected]> wrote:
>TeamCasa did say:
>
>> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>> from a tablesaw.
>>
>> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Dave
>
>Setup?? Procedures?? Sharpness?? BAH!!! The tool with the most power is
>the best option. Always. HP beats sharpness any day of the week. Maximum
>current draw = maximum woodworking happiness.
hmm... I have an old sears benchtop saw.... and an old chevy 327 in
the shed...
would about 400 horse power be enough?
Time and time again? Nope, don't agree. Many times I get an edge I
can't improve upon off the saw. Sometimes not. The "improved" edge I
get off the jointer is no better than the really good ones I get off the
saw.
bob g.
TeamCasa wrote:
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
> from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
"Tom Kohlman" wrote in message
> Interesting reading...whereas I religiously make a habit of ripping wide
and
> then truing-up on the jointer, it now occurs to me that the little fuzzy
> surface on the saw-cut may actually provide for a better glue-up than the
> jointer produced glass surface..
IIRC, most modern glue manufacturers will advise you that a rough surface is
of no benefit whatsoever.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0700, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>from a tablesaw.
>
>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
>Thoughts?
Why certainly, Dave, of _course_ I have thoughts....
The foremost one being: Isn't it a bit odd that no one has yet
defined-- in this or the previous thread-- what is _exactly_ meant by
the phrase "prepared" surface?
Are they (you) referring to the actual glued surfaces OR the
_glue_line_ that will be visible on the (say) tabletop _after_
glue-up?
If it's the former, there is no difference between the two in any
_real_ sense. You could rip a board with a handsaw, true it up by
holding both boards together and rubbing the edges on the sidewalk and
get a glued joint that would hold up longer under stress than the
surrounding wood. So from that perspective, it's a draw. Either
properly setup machine will outperform the necessary requirements for
a successful result. Of course, the glue line will _look_ like shit,
but...
If it's the latter, and it's an almost invisible glue line that you're
after, then there is no discernable difference between the two either.
Given properly set up equipment of either type, once the boards have
been glued, the "scallops" (man, that's going some, ain't it?) that
are left by the jointer are too small to be seen and the edge left by
a great blade in a good saw is going to be... perfect. :) So from
that perspective it's a draw, too.
I've done both. Darned if I can tell the difference. So;
Either case, it's a draw. Can we get back to sumpin' important now,
like how much Kerry sucks? (I just threw that in 'cause Charlie's
reading this thread.) :)
Once again, passionate woodworkers pondering questions one would
expect to see only on the rec.rolex.escapements.precision.machining
newsgroup.(1)
God, I _love_ this place. It's full of people even more anal than I
am. ;>
Michael Baglio
(1) Yeah, I made that up.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0700, TeamCasa wrote:
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the
> difference between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that
> of a rip from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dave
I've been using my Searz RAS for glue up ripping red oak. Can't feel any
blade marks and can hardly find any with a bright light and a magnifying
glass.
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
TeamCasa did say:
> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
> from a tablesaw.
>
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dave
Setup?? Procedures?? Sharpness?? BAH!!! The tool with the most power is
the best option. Always. HP beats sharpness any day of the week. Maximum
current draw = maximum woodworking happiness.
--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.
mac davis did say:
> Maximum
>>current draw = maximum woodworking happiness.
>
> hmm... I have an old sears benchtop saw.... and an old chevy 327 in
> the shed...
> would about 400 horse power be enough?
Almost certainly. If there's any doubt whatsoever, N2O is always an option.
--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:41:11 -0400, Carlos Moreno
<[email protected]> wrote:
>TeamCasa wrote:
>> In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>> between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>> from a tablesaw.
>>
>> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>> quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>> render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>Intuitively, it feels like the jointer should win even in the
>best conditions for the tablesaw. Each cut of the jointer is
>done by one blade which is a straight line moving to form a
>cylinder. You now concatenate very close cylinder surfaces,
>so the finish should be very smooth.
>
>With the tablesaw, you achieve the cut plane surface by
>concatenating parallel circular lines -- if you move the
>wood too fast, it would tend to form grooves (you would have
>a surface akin to an old vinyl record -- an LP). If you
>move it slowly, it's better, but it still sounds like the
>surface should be more irregular than in the other case.
>
>I'm no expert, BTW, but this is what my intuition tells me.
>
>Carlos
depends on the tooth pattern. a saw blade made for finish cuts has big
teeth with fairly long faces. the edge of the faces is a cutting
surface which overlaps the cutting surface of the previous tooth.
it's not just cutting at the tips.....
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0700, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>from a tablesaw.
>
>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Dave
>
>
My uneducated guess would be that if you could get that good of a
square edge on a good table saw, the guys that do quality work all
have jointers that they're wasting time with...
Every web page that I've looked at relating to this and related
groups, there is both a saw and jointer... (and a surface planer
*sigh* *envy attack*)
mac davis writes:
>
>>In a separate thread, a discussion has evolved to discussing the difference
>>between the quality of a surface prepared by a jointer and that of a rip
>>from a tablesaw.
>>
>>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>My uneducated guess would be that if you could get that good of a
>square edge on a good table saw, the guys that do quality work all
>have jointers that they're wasting time with...
>
How does that relate? You joint a face and an edge, then rip the parallel edge.
I see no lack of need for the jointer.
Charlie Self
"There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other
is pulling up." Booker T. Washington
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:03:50 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>More specifically, what have you
>guys seen or been impressed with when you went from a blade you were very
>please with to a Forrest or another named blade?
In my experience a Freud, better DeWalt, etc... ($50-$60), and a
Forrest, Systematic, or other "pro shop" blade ($100+), all start out
cutting very nicely. A few hours of cutting later is when the
difference becomes apparent. The $50 blade is still cutting OK, the
better blade is still sweeeet!
Sometimes, all it takes is one very difficult board to show the
difference. Woods that are prone to chip out or burning can magnify
the difference.
I actually lived in the same camp as you, until I finally broke down
and bought a WWII. FWIW, my local fine woodworking school prefers
Systematic and Ridge Carbide blades over Forrest, and he's got them
all.
Barry
Barry responds:
>>More specifically, what have you
>>guys seen or been impressed with when you went from a blade you were very
>>please with to a Forrest or another named blade?
>
>In my experience a Freud, better DeWalt, etc... ($50-$60), and a
>Forrest, Systematic, or other "pro shop" blade ($100+), all start out
>cutting very nicely. A few hours of cutting later is when the
>difference becomes apparent. The $50 blade is still cutting OK, the
>better blade is still sweeeet!
>
>Sometimes, all it takes is one very difficult board to show the
>difference. Woods that are prone to chip out or burning can magnify
>the difference.
>
>I actually lived in the same camp as you, until I finally broke down
>and bought a WWII. FWIW, my local fine woodworking school prefers
>Systematic and Ridge Carbide blades over Forrest, and he's got them
>all.
My experience, too, but with Freud 410 blades instead of Forrest.
Anyone looking for SystiMatic blades: I wish you better luck than I had. They
seem to have been bought by Simonds and turned into a sawmill brand with
replaceable teeth.
Charlie Self
"There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other
is pulling up." Booker T. Washington
On 19 Oct 2004 07:02:38 -0700, [email protected] (Alex
Feldman) wrote:
>Couple of thoughts:
>
>The jointer, or at least all those I have seen (I wonder if this will
>be one of those why-didn't-I-think-of-that innovations a few years
>down the road) has knives that cut perpindicular to the grain, with no
>shear at all. Depending on the pattern, saw blades can have at least
>a little shear, which should make for a cleaner cut.
spiral cut jointers have been around for a long time. latest thing is
indexed tooth cutter heads....
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:17:13 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>TeamCasa wrote:
>>I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades are
>>quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will still
>>render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time again.
>
>>Thoughts?
I think the Freud crosscut blade makes a damn fine cut, and I don't
imagine the rip blade is inferior in any way. I would think the
answer would depend on how nice a jointer you were using, but after a
certain point, I doubt it matters much- they're both excellent.
>In theory yes but I can usually count on some tear out with
>the jointer whereas the table saw delivers me a glue ready
>edge without tear out.
>
>UA100
"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> My uneducated guess would be that if you could get that good of a
> square edge on a good table saw, the guys that do quality work all
> have jointers that they're wasting time with...
Huh... If you are infering that if a TS can produce an edge as clean as a
jointer, the jointer is going to waste time, you are wrong. The jointer IS
NOT supposed to be used to clean up TS cuts. A jointers primary purpose is
to Straighten and Flatten Stock. If you are going from the TS to the
jointer you are doing every thing backwards.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> writes:
> I believe that if all of the equipment is setup properly, all blades
> are quality ones, sharp and the procedures are sound, a jointer will
> still render a better quality surface than a tablesaw time and time
> again.
A better surface for looking at, or a better surface for glue
adhesion?
"WoodMangler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Setup?? Procedures?? Sharpness?? BAH!!! The tool with the most power is
> the best option. Always. HP beats sharpness any day of the week. Maximum
> current draw = maximum woodworking happiness.
>
Horsepower. Yesssssssss.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]