In my estimation, the vessel should be more durable as the entire unit
breaths and expands/contracts in unison, whereas with a solid base,
the upper rings expand in all directions while the base in only one.
It seems that using a solid base almost requires the use of a veneer
layer between the two to prohibit/retard cracking between the base and
the segmented rings. Of course, if the grain orientation of the other
rings aren't properly aligned, all bets are off anyway.


I didn't make myself clear. The solid part I was referring to was the lower
portion of the bowl between the two segmented layers at the top and the
segmented bottom.

I think the segmented bottom adds to the attractiveness of the piece. Just a
plain center/bottom bowl part seemed like it would add drama. I'm not an
arteeest so maybe my thought is goofy.

Now your feelings of disparate movement may still be your answer. I guess
you'd have to assemble your segments, then add to a solid blank, then turn
and hollow about like normal. Then add to your segmented bottom.

TomNie

Tom Nie said:

I didn't make myself clear. The solid part I was referring to was the lower
portion of the bowl between the two segmented layers at the top and the
segmented bottom.

Tom,

Actually, you were quite clear, I simply exhibited the far too common
Usenet trait of not paying complete attention to what you said.
It's been a really bad week...

I have seen what you describe...
Similar to this fine bowl by Kevin Neeley, I assume:

http://www.turnedwood.com/images/Bowl0745b.jpg

I have never tried it, and don't have any big dried blanks to work
with. That is one advantage of turning kiln fried woods. They are
already at a consistent moisture content, ergo the parts that make up
the bowl segments are also consistent. This ensures that
expansion/contraction should relatively predictable, and that
(hopefully) nothing should crack after a few seasons.

Turning a block of green wood and then trying to glue up with kiln
fried segments would require a considerable amount of time for drying
and equalization, or as the green blank dried, the segments would pop
off like a '69 Ford LTD hubcap.

I've never seen a 10" x 10" x 4" kiln fried butternut blank for sale,
and at the price of wood these days, I'm not sure I want to. Same
with Cherry, Maple, etc. When I turn large monolithic blanks, I
generally use green wood collected myself. Being relatively poor,
it's generally a requirement. :-|

I think the segmented bottom adds to the attractiveness of the piece. Just a
plain center/bottom bowl part seemed like it would add drama. I'm not an
arteeest so maybe my thought is goofy.

As demonstrated by the above referenced bowl, not goofy at all.
Expensive and time consuming perhaps, but looks good to me.

Now your feelings of disparate movement may still be your answer. I guess
you'd have to assemble your segments, then add to a solid blank, then turn
and hollow about like normal. Then add to your segmented bottom.

With dried woods and MC equalization, it should be doable, albeit at a
price. I still worry about the differing expansion characteristics of
the various parts. The large monolithic blank would expand greatly
cross grain in one direction, but the segmented rings would expand to
a lesser extent in all directions. I assume you would have to pay
particular attention to the expansion percentages of the chosen woods,
turn somewhat thin, and it might possibly require the use of veneer
layers and a pliable glue to offset the tendency of the pieces to
crack apart at the glue lines.

I'm certainly no expert, but that's my take on it all...

FWIW,


Greg G.

Greg, Hey that's some cool stuff! Glanced at a couple of the images and the
bowl you linked is outstanding. The solid section has so much movement it's
as if it's segmented, too. What an example of a plain jane bowl SHAPE being
treated in such a way as to be a piece of art in large part because of the
simple intrinsic beauty of wood. That's not a slight of Neeley because how
he brought it all together is marvelous. Thanks for the link.

http://www.turnedwood.com/images/Bowl0688a.jpg
Notice what he did on this one. Created the solid effect in the center that
I was talking about but used segments.

I gotta learn how to do this stuff but using local woods like the cherry and
black walnut I've got piled around here. Maybe the beech could be used as
the contrast.

TomNie

Similar to this fine bowl by Kevin Neeley, I assume:

http://www.turnedwood.com/images/Bowl0745b.jpg

Tom Nie said:

Greg, Hey that's some cool stuff! Glanced at a couple of the images and the
bowl you linked is outstanding. The solid section has so much movement it's
as if it's segmented, too. What an example of a plain jane bowl SHAPE being
treated in such a way as to be a piece of art in large part because of the
simple intrinsic beauty of wood. That's not a slight of Neeley because how
he brought it all together is marvelous. Thanks for the link.

There are a lot of segmented turners out there, but KN's stuff is more
to my taste than most others. I would love to find out where he gets
the black palm - but from what I have read, it's a real bear to turn.

http://www.turnedwood.com/images/Bowl0688a.jpg
Notice what he did on this one. Created the solid effect in the center that
I was talking about but used segments.

OK, I've done one like that...

http://webpages.charter.net/videodoc...entedPot04.jpg

Feature band is unadorned by detail... But it IS segmented.

I gotta learn how to do this stuff but using local woods like the cherry and
black walnut I've got piled around here. Maybe the beech could be used as
the contrast.

A very large beech tree fell in a local park a week ago. I've been
eyeing it for a way to cut it up and remove it, but they have the path
partitioned off. A crew showed up and threw most of it into the wood
chipper. ARRGGHH!!! This thing was huge - about 60' tall and 32" in
diameter. The 3-4' sections they cut it into are too heavy to lift.

What a waste...



Greg G.