| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
A few questions, as I'm trying to develop a new machine, and maybe a
little informal market research. (NOTE - I am NOT trying to sell anything. I'm trying to develop this little machine in my own basement, and am a LONG way off. I'm just trying to get a sense of what "serious amateurs" to "smaller professionals" think of the idea.) A) How much are y'all frustrated by the current situation -- that is, that you need a jointer to flatten one face, and a planer to make the other face flat-and-parallel to the first? (And - you need two machines that do *just* about the same thing, but take up 2x as much space, and one's heavy as heck, and both need their knives sharpened and then adjusted.... Oh, and a jointer's usually 6" whereas a planer's 12.5" or 13" -- unless you take the safety guard off the jointer and do 2 passes.... (And, the planer snipes, and both of 'em scallop your wood...?) B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)? C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"? Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine insteadof a planer AND A jointer)
Nobody wrote:
Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew Probably...sounds like you would like what you've outlined, right. Burn the midnite oil and get it to market. Then I'll pop in to my local tool store to kick the tires. oh, and I'll want to read a review of it in a major mag or two before I seriously consider it's purchase. Go for it! hey, it's not April Fool's yet, is it?? Dave |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:54:18 -0800, David wrote:
Andrew wrote: Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew Probably...sounds like you would like what you've outlined, right. Burn the midnite oil and get it to market. Then I'll pop in to my local tool store to kick the tires. oh, and I'll want to read a review of it in a major mag or two before I seriously consider it's purchase. Go for it! hey, it's not April Fool's yet, is it?? Dave No, it's not a joke. I have some of it working rather nicely, based on several different power tools you're probably quite comfy with already. It's the novel combination of those -- plus a key, older idea that was patented (now expired) -- that's the key. I know all about "yeah, we'll need to see it, and some reviews, before we'd believe it". My point is "SUPPOSE it worked as advertised -- is that something there's demand for? Would people much rather have a one-machine solution? Do people really understand that, now, you DO need two machines? Is there actually "pain" in the marketplace?" Pretend with me, for the moment, that what I'm saying about the machine is true, and could be proven -- NOW -- how do you feel about the idea? Thanks, Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
Isn't it the X5 or one of the other "All-In-One" wonders that has the 12"
joiner/planer combo? But to answer your question, Yes, I do believe a lot of people would be interested. You should contact someone like Jessem in Canada that has come out with some recent entries in the woodworking market in the past couple of years and talk to them about what it takes to get an idea through to fruition. You may be better off selling the idea to some company that has the means to develop it and market the product. There are a lot of good inventions sitting in peoples shops simply because they don't know what to do next. Build a prototype to insure the idea works, document it and get a patent for it. It took my brother 3 years to get his patent finally approved but that involved chemicals. His lawyer and the patent searches were not cheap but in the end, he paid the bills and made a few bucks but nothing to brag about. He said he could have made more money selling it to the company that first offered to buy it from him.... Point being... If you can't patent your idea, you have little protection from it being copied and brought to market even before you have a single model to sell. How will you manufacturer it and market it? When it's all said and done, you might be able to manufacturer these yourself and capture a niche market of "Built to Order" but I wouldn't quit my day job just yet. Sorry to be so doom and gloom but I've been a part of that process in the past. Not easy, not fun and it takes money and hard work. Should you make it though, I'd sure like to see one... Bob S. "Nobody" wrote in message ... A few questions, as I'm trying to develop a new machine, and maybe a little informal market research. (NOTE - I am NOT trying to sell anything. I'm trying to develop this little machine in my own basement, and am a LONG way off. I'm just trying to get a sense of what "serious amateurs" to "smaller professionals" think of the idea.) A) How much are y'all frustrated by the current situation -- that is, that you need a jointer to flatten one face, and a planer to make the other face flat-and-parallel to the first? (And - you need two machines that do *just* about the same thing, but take up 2x as much space, and one's heavy as heck, and both need their knives sharpened and then adjusted.... Oh, and a jointer's usually 6" whereas a planer's 12.5" or 13" -- unless you take the safety guard off the jointer and do 2 passes.... (And, the planer snipes, and both of 'em scallop your wood...?) B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)? C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"? Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
Sound good to me but what about edge jointing for panel glue ups?
"Nobody" wrote in message ... A few questions, as I'm trying to develop a new machine, and maybe a little informal market research. (NOTE - I am NOT trying to sell anything. I'm trying to develop this little machine in my own basement, and am a LONG way off. I'm just trying to get a sense of what "serious amateurs" to "smaller professionals" think of the idea.) A) How much are y'all frustrated by the current situation -- that is, that you need a jointer to flatten one face, and a planer to make the other face flat-and-parallel to the first? (And - you need two machines that do *just* about the same thing, but take up 2x as much space, and one's heavy as heck, and both need their knives sharpened and then adjusted.... Oh, and a jointer's usually 6" whereas a planer's 12.5" or 13" -- unless you take the safety guard off the jointer and do 2 passes.... (And, the planer snipes, and both of 'em scallop your wood...?) B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)? C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"? Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
I'd buy it tomorrow; but, as Wayne pointed out, you would still need a
jointer for edge jointing. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
|
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine insteadof a planer AND A jointer)
Nobody wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:54:18 -0800, David wrote: Andrew wrote: Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew Probably...sounds like you would like what you've outlined, right. Burn the midnite oil and get it to market. Then I'll pop in to my local tool store to kick the tires. oh, and I'll want to read a review of it in a major mag or two before I seriously consider it's purchase. Go for it! hey, it's not April Fool's yet, is it?? Dave No, it's not a joke. I have some of it working rather nicely, based on several different power tools you're probably quite comfy with already. It's the novel combination of those -- plus a key, older idea that was patented (now expired) -- that's the key. I know all about "yeah, we'll need to see it, and some reviews, before we'd believe it". My point is "SUPPOSE it worked as advertised -- is that something there's demand for? Would people much rather have a one-machine solution? Do people really understand that, now, you DO need two machines? Is there actually "pain" in the marketplace?" Pretend with me, for the moment, that what I'm saying about the machine is true, and could be proven -- NOW -- how do you feel about the idea? Thanks, Andrew I'd be seriously interested, Andrew. I can't imagine you hitting that low of a price point, though. Dave |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
"Nobody" wrote in message ... Snip (And, the planer snipes, and both of 'em scallop your wood...?) B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)? C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"? Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! It already exists and The street value is about $695 from Rikon. http://www.rikontools.com/images/Sel...nter25-010.pdf |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
That's easy. He'll have made in China.
"David" wrote in message ... I'd be seriously interested, Andrew. I can't imagine you hitting that low of a price point, though. Dave |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
Doh!!! That's pretty funny! So much for researching the existing
market. Really, this idea could be a really good one but I don't think Rikon executed it very well. Maybe the OP could do a better job. The problems I see with the Rikon is that the tables are way too short compared to most other jointers, especially the larger capacity jointers. And, the tables are made out of aluminum instead of cast iron. And, only a two knife cutterhead. But maybe it works just great. Rikon supposedly makes pretty good bandsaws but I've never heard about anything else they sell. Bruce |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine insteadof a planer AND A jointer)
CW wrote:
That's easy. He'll have made in China. "David" wrote in message ... I'd be seriously interested, Andrew. I can't imagine you hitting that low of a price point, though. Dave g Dave |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:48:33 -0800, Nobody
scribbled: B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)? Already been done, many European manufacturers make jointer/thicknessers. Jointer on top, thicknesser under. See: http://www.griggio.it/categoria_prod...inea=1&lang=04 http://www.minimax-usa.com/jointer-planer/fs30.html http://www.rojekusa.com/PHP/msp310m.php http://www.felder.co.at/d_main_produ...ang=0000000090 etc. C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"? This I would like to see. The European machines are great but cost an arm and a leg. Depending on the quality, I might buy one. Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! There, you have my two cents (Canadian). Luigi Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ct_Woodworking |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
The idea of passing a board acrossed the top of the
cutter head of a planer to face join one face before planing the other face parallel has been around for a while and the combination is available on several currently available machines - and at a size and with jointer tables long enough to handle furniture sized stock. Felder/Hammer, Robland, Rojek, Mini Max and others all have such units, all with 3+ HP TEFC motors. The combination will let you flatten one face, regardless of whether it's bowed, cupped or TWISTED. Your description of your idea begs several questions 1. can it do the job on a TWISTED piece of stock? 2. what's the max depth of cut per pass? 3. what feed rate at maximum depth of cut? 4. will it work on green or resinous wood without gumming up? 5. what is the functional life expectancy of the medium used to remove the wood? 6. what is the cost of replacement of whatever it is that removes the wood? 7. How thin can the stock be goiing into the unit? 8. will it produce a straight, flat edge that is square to one flat face? 9. can the planer set up be kept when going back to joining one face? 10. joining and planing generate a great deal of "waste" - can they effectively be removed with a dust collector? 11. how complicated/complex is the set up? charlie b |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
Andrew,
In addition to the other advice and links you've received, here's another tip for you as an "amateur inventor": next time you have an idea, don't broadcast it all over usenet (or anywhere else) - if it's a good idea, someone will grab it and run with it so fast it'll make your head spin. Take it in person to a few knowledgeable people and have them sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement B. "Nobody" wrote in message ... A few questions, as I'm trying to develop a new machine, and maybe a little informal market research. (NOTE - I am NOT trying to sell anything. I'm trying to develop this little machine in my own basement, and am a LONG way off. I'm just trying to get a sense of what "serious amateurs" to "smaller professionals" think of the idea.) A) How much are y'all frustrated by the current situation -- that is, that you need a jointer to flatten one face, and a planer to make the other face flat-and-parallel to the first? (And - you need two machines that do *just* about the same thing, but take up 2x as much space, and one's heavy as heck, and both need their knives sharpened and then adjusted.... Oh, and a jointer's usually 6" whereas a planer's 12.5" or 13" -- unless you take the safety guard off the jointer and do 2 passes.... (And, the planer snipes, and both of 'em scallop your wood...?) B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)? C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"? Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor! Thanks, Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machineinstead...
And:
http://www.owwm.com/PhotoIndex/detail.asp?id=1666 JOAT Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machineinstead...
|
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machineinstead...
"J T" wrote in message ... Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 2:31am (Buddy Matlosz) doth sayeth: snip next time you have an idea, snip Might want to research it first. You can start he http://www.uspto.gov/. There is help for inventors with a new invention, and you can check the patent archives to see what has already been patented. Your patent has to be useful, but it also has to be novel and non-obvious. Once you have the patent application filed, you can go ahead and figure out how to manufacture, distribute and sell it. If you thought the original invention was a difficult challenge, you will find these to be nearly insurmountable and it is where most new inventions founder and die. It is a really good idea to find some company that can already provide these functions and license the invention to them. Royalty income is a nice addition to whatever you really live on, and keeps you from having to spend all your time on activities that probably don't interest you. And even if you like manufacturing, you may hate distribution or sales. If you figure out a relatively painless way to solve these problems, let me know. I have a novelty ruler that measures in astronomical units, atoparsecs. Every amateur astronomer should have one. Good luck, Steve |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
wrote in message oups.com... Doh!!! That's pretty funny! So much for researching the existing market. Really, this idea could be a really good one but I don't think Rikon executed it very well. Maybe the OP could do a better job. The problems I see with the Rikon is that the tables are way too short compared to most other jointers, especially the larger capacity jointers. And, the tables are made out of aluminum instead of cast iron. And, only a two knife cutterhead. But maybe it works just great. Rikon supposedly makes pretty good bandsaws but I've never heard about anything else they sell. I noticed the short beds a few weeks ago also. This would be ideal for a hobbyist though as the length of the in deed and out geed would handle 6' and shorter boards pretty well. Also, Rikon does not manufacture. They have tools made to their specs. I noticed that they have a Tormek alternative that looks a lot like a Tormek and is much cheaper. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of aplaner AND A jointer)
charlie b wrote:
The idea of passing a board acrossed the top of the cutter head of a planer to face join one face before planing the other face parallel has been around for a while and the combination is available on several currently available machines - and at a size and with jointer tables long enough to handle furniture sized stock. Felder/Hammer, Robland, Rojek, Mini Max and others all have such units, all with 3+ HP TEFC motors. The combination will let you flatten one face, regardless of whether it's bowed, cupped or TWISTED. Your description of your idea begs several questions 1. can it do the job on a TWISTED piece of stock? 2. what's the max depth of cut per pass? 3. what feed rate at maximum depth of cut? 4. will it work on green or resinous wood without gumming up? 5. what is the functional life expectancy of the medium used to remove the wood? 6. what is the cost of replacement of whatever it is that removes the wood? 7. How thin can the stock be goiing into the unit? 8. will it produce a straight, flat edge that is square to one flat face? 9. can the planer set up be kept when going back to joining one face? 10. joining and planing generate a great deal of "waste" - can they effectively be removed with a dust collector? 11. how complicated/complex is the set up? Plus the one I've had w/ the automated "planer as jointer" machines--how do you control and drive a non-flat piece of material past the cutter head w/o distorting it to get the initial flat reference surface? That's the reason for the jointer initially and why working a piece through the planer first (unless it's so thick as to be essentially rigid) doesn't work. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message ... charlie b wrote: Plus the one I've had w/ the automated "planer as jointer" machines--how do you control and drive a non-flat piece of material past the cutter head w/o distorting it to get the initial flat reference surface? That's the reason for the jointer initially and why working a piece through the planer first (unless it's so thick as to be essentially rigid) doesn't work. These combination machines have a jointer to straighten and flatten the stock. Then after flattening the stock you run it through the planer. Have you seen the Rikon? The Rikon has short beds but has a 10" jointer capacity and then you run the flat on one side wood below the bed area to plane to thickness. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead ofa planer AND A jointer)
Leon wrote:
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message ... charlie b wrote: Plus the one I've had w/ the automated "planer as jointer" machines--how do you control and drive a non-flat piece of material past the cutter head w/o distorting it to get the initial flat reference surface? That's the reason for the jointer initially and why working a piece through the planer first (unless it's so thick as to be essentially rigid) doesn't work. These combination machines have a jointer to straighten and flatten the stock. Then after flattening the stock you run it through the planer. Have you seen the Rikon? The Rikon has short beds but has a 10" jointer capacity and then you run the flat on one side wood below the bed area to plane to thickness. That's what I was talking about--although perhaps I didn't write it as clearly as I could have :) To drive the material across the planer/jointer as OP suggests seems to me to be describing an automagic drive that would have sufficient support to prevent kickback and drive a wide work piece against a rotating cutterhead w/o compressing the workpiece. Seems a mean trick if he can arrange it. It takes a significant amount of force to do that. I suppose one could rearrange it to use something like a router in a plane and not move the workpiece or make the cuts w/ such a cutter that works a lot less material at a time, but that doesn't sound like what OP has in mind... |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:52:32 -0800, David wrote:
[snip] Pretend with me, for the moment, that what I'm saying about the machine is true, and could be proven -- NOW -- how do you feel about the idea? Thanks, Andrew I'd be seriously interested, Andrew. I can't imagine you hitting that low of a price point, though. Dave Understood -- and looking at existing approaches to jointers and planers, your skepticism is pretty reasonable. However - the approach I'm taking is very different. Probably about 3/4 of the parts (motor, castings, power-transmission & speed control, etc.) are directly comparable to a very common shop tool that I can buy right now for $90 - RETAIL. I avoid a lot of the expense since I don't need the heavy castings of a jointer, or the complicated infeed/roller system of a planer. And - for some validation of the technical idea, a MAJOR tool group patented a hand power tool with a very similar approach (I won't say which, but it's either Bosch, DeWalt, Hitachi, or Makita), but never made it. (And, no, their patent doesn't actually interfere, for subtle reasons.) Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:45:24 -0500, John Wilson wrote:
Check this link out http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/inca_570.shtml John I've seen that Inca machine, and there's been a Hitachi "over-under" combo on the market way back when. I note a couple of things, though. Most of the references I see (including the review you pointed out) are from about 8 years ago. The Inca is pretty tough to buy, at least in the U.S. I did some pretty extensive Googling and finally found one for about $2,300. That's getting more into the pro-shop category, and a for that money you CAN get a pretty decent jointer and planer. I'm looking at something you might see on the shelf near stuff like DeWalt and Makita, maybe at a Woodcraft, or in the catalog Amazon sends us all. Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:56:53 -0800, theblacksheep wrote:
Doh!!! That's pretty funny! So much for researching the existing market. Really, this idea could be a really good one but I don't think Rikon executed it very well. Maybe the OP could do a better job. The problems I see with the Rikon is that the tables are way too short compared to most other jointers, especially the larger capacity jointers. And, the tables are made out of aluminum instead of cast iron. And, only a two knife cutterhead. But maybe it works just great. Rikon supposedly makes pretty good bandsaws but I've never heard about anything else they sell. Bruce I've been aware of a number of over/under combo machines (a few other posters mention Rojek, MiniMax, and a bunch of other European mfgs.). I'm not worried: A) They don't sell at all well in the U.S. Hey - the Euro combo "5-in-1" machines are nifty, too, but this market just doesn't go for them, either. B) They're fairly expensive, as someone else points out, below (one reason maybe they don't do so well). But the big reason is this: C) They ALL still basically use the SAME design that current jointers AND planers use -- a rotating drum, with feed rollers for the planer part. So - they all will have varying problems with scalloping and snipe, and have a high part-cost. NO over-under drum design avoids these fundamental problems -- they can only tweak the engineering & mfg. better (which gets more and more expensive). My design produces a ready-to-finish, (YES, really!) scraper-smooth surface, with no snipe, far less tearout on roey grain or tricky woods like B.E. maple, Brazilian (real) rosewood, or (gasp) ebony. And, yes, I've tested it and it works. Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine insteadof a planer AND A jointer)
The Rikon product doesn't do what the original poster said.
It won't plane a flat surface on board, it will only plane a surface parallel to the other side. Wasn't the original proposal for a tool that would actually flatten one side before planing the other? wrote: Doh!!! That's pretty funny! So much for researching the existing market. Really, this idea could be a really good one but I don't think Rikon executed it very well. Maybe the OP could do a better job. The problems I see with the Rikon is that the tables are way too short compared to most other jointers, especially the larger capacity jointers. And, the tables are made out of aluminum instead of cast iron. And, only a two knife cutterhead. But maybe it works just great. Rikon supposedly makes pretty good bandsaws but I've never heard about anything else they sell. Bruce |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:51:33 -0800, charlie b wrote:
The idea of passing a board acrossed the top of the cutter head of a planer to face join one face before planing the other face parallel has been around for a while and the combination is available on several currently available machines - and at a size and with jointer tables long enough to handle furniture sized stock. Felder/Hammer, Robland, Rojek, Mini Max and others all have such units, all with 3+ HP TEFC motors. The combination will let you flatten one face, regardless of whether it's bowed, cupped or TWISTED. Your description of your idea begs several questions 1. can it do the job on a TWISTED piece of stock? 2. what's the max depth of cut per pass? 3. what feed rate at maximum depth of cut? 4. will it work on green or resinous wood without gumming up? 5. what is the functional life expectancy of the medium used to remove the wood? 6. what is the cost of replacement of whatever it is that removes the wood? 7. How thin can the stock be goiing into the unit? 8. will it produce a straight, flat edge that is square to one flat face? 9. can the planer set up be kept when going back to joining one face? 10. joining and planing generate a great deal of "waste" - can they effectively be removed with a dust collector? 11. how complicated/complex is the set up? charlie b GOOD questions. First, see my previous post about the existing over/under designs. Also - my design gets the same oomph from a smaller motor (yes, TEFC, but I can do a similar depth-of-cut with about half the horses due to how it works -- and, sorry, that gets into Nukleer Seekrits). I HAVE tested this a bit on the usual B.E. maple, walnut, cocobolo, etc., as well as my Terror Test: Ipe'. It's a nasty, tool-eatin' wood. If you've never worked Ipe' -- Google it. It has fine silica particles which blunt tool-edges fast, often roey grain, and is both hard and tough. GORGEOUS, though, and cheap as heck. The big, interesting problem with it is that they mill it in the rainforest to finished size, then ship it up to us with our -- let's say SLIGHTLY different -- humidity. So some of my Ipe' boards have been doozies. 1. Yes, it'll do twisted -- see Ipe', above ;-). I'm still refining that part of the design, but so far, it's pretty good. 2,3. Not sure yet. I'm working on increasing the usable width-of-cut, so there're a lot of variables to be worked out: motor HP, depth-of-cut, width, etc. (Please realize that YOUR question has a few variables left out -- you can take a much deeper cut, at a higher feed rate, in clear pine or DF, than in red oak. ;-) 4.) Again, not sure. I do have some local tree-cutters drop off some log-sections -- lately got a few hundred lbs. of unsplit black walnut and figured olive, nearly 12" across, unchecked, and probably 20+" long) in a load of FIREWOOD, for heck's sake! They're sitting in the shop with paraffin on the ends for a while as I think about what to do with 'em. But - I don't usually work with wet/green wood until it's stabilized, so I don't know. Resinous -- I'd be glad to test that out -- what do you suggest, or have the most problem with? 5-6.) It's HSS at this point. It's also got a nifty design that allows the end-user to sharpen the cutting parts VERY easily, without needing high-precision. (KEY BENEFIT: unlike all common jointers/planers, the blades can be sharpened and re-installed WITHOUT recalibration or complicated setup/tweaking.) Current guess: the parts can be sharpened quite a number of times, then replaced for something like $20-40 total. 7.) How thin? VERY thin. Think guitar fretboards of REAL brazilian rosewood. 8.) No, at least, not yet. Currently, I'm just working on a machine to do two flat, parallel opposing faces. So, the "traditional" function of a jointer -- to do EDGES -- is not part of this. Ironic, I know. However, that's part of "Phase II". And it's easy to "joint" an edge with a router and a straightedge, or a tablesaw (which is what I do), so that's not such a big worry at this point. 9.) I think I understand your question -- can you keep the depth-of-cut setting on the planer, but joint the first-face on a new board? I'll have to think about that. How important is that? Wouldn't you joint the first face of all your boards first, then start to thickness-plane them? 10.) Dust collection is excellent. Probably considerably better than either jointers or planers. 11.) Setup is pretty straightforward. Can you elaborate on what you dislike about setup with either a jointer or a planer? (Table height difference on a jointer, e.g.?) Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:19:53 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
[snip] Plus the one I've had w/ the automated "planer as jointer" machines--how do you control and drive a non-flat piece of material past the cutter head w/o distorting it to get the initial flat reference surface? That's the reason for the jointer initially and why working a piece through the planer first (unless it's so thick as to be essentially rigid) doesn't work. Excellent point. Here's where I have to again invoke Nukleer Seekrits. I can't answer your question at the moment by telling you HOW I do it. You're right, though -- take a cupped/bowed/twisted hardwood board, say 4-6" wide and maybe 5' long. Try to run it under a rotating planer head. You need rubber drums to hold it down and feed it against the force of the knives pushing it back at you. Those feed-drums have to squish the (flexible) board against the table to keep the board from kicking right back out the infeed side. So they also have to squish it into a flat profile. Once they're done trimming, the board springs back into its previously cupped/bowed/twisted state, and the "flat" face you just put on it -- ain't. ---------------------- A jointer works for this task BECAUSE it uses a flat table reference surface, using YOU for the feed force (not rollers -- and I didn't even mention the snipe that feed rollers invariably cause). You "average" the bottom surface, based on where the board contacts the infeed and outfeed tables (which is why jointers need MUCH longer tables than a planer). The bits of the bottom surface that stick out the most get shaved off, over multiple passes, until the surface has been "averaged" down to a flat, REFERENCE surface, as you mentioned. ----------------------- So - I can't tell you HOW my machine design DOES avoid these problems -- I'm patenting some of the key ideas and can't disclose them publicly. But, if you don't need to "squish" the wood with rollers -- you avoid the problem. Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:28:57 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Leon wrote: "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message ... charlie b wrote: Plus the one I've had w/ the automated "planer as jointer" machines--how do you control and drive a non-flat piece of material past the cutter head w/o distorting it to get the initial flat reference surface? That's the reason for the jointer initially and why working a piece through the planer first (unless it's so thick as to be essentially rigid) doesn't work. These combination machines have a jointer to straighten and flatten the stock. Then after flattening the stock you run it through the planer. Have you seen the Rikon? The Rikon has short beds but has a 10" jointer capacity and then you run the flat on one side wood below the bed area to plane to thickness. That's what I was talking about--although perhaps I didn't write it as clearly as I could have :) To drive the material across the planer/jointer as OP suggests seems to me to be describing an automagic drive that would have sufficient support to prevent kickback and drive a wide work piece against a rotating cutterhead w/o compressing the workpiece. Seems a mean trick if he can arrange it. It takes a significant amount of force to do that. I suppose one could rearrange it to use something like a router in a plane and not move the workpiece or make the cuts w/ such a cutter that works a lot less material at a time, but that doesn't sound like what OP has in mind... VERY well put. Everyone so far is stuck in thinking about their existing jointer/planer designs, which (a) scallop and (b) kickback, which means (c) they need a particular type of power-feed. If you don't have kickback, you don't need powerfeed. (And - hey - jointers kickback, but DON'T HAVE A POWER-FEED -- right? Note - this is a TOTAL red herring -- it's not the approach I take --but it's worth thinking about!) Assume, for the sake of argument, that kickback ain't a problem. And, thus, the powerfeed, and compression of the workpiece, ain't a problem. Pretend there's, say, Luke Skywalker's lightsaber suspended in there, and all you have to do is run the board through on a flat table, slice the top off perfectly level, flip it over, lower the lightsaber to spec'd thickness, and run the board through again. BINGO! (Except for the burn marks.) Does that idea make everybody's conceptual problems go away? Now, let's assume, as the old joke about economists goes, that I actually HAVE a lightsaber.... Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:08:10 -0600, Mike Berger wrote:
The Rikon product doesn't do what the original poster said. It won't plane a flat surface on board, it will only plane a surface parallel to the other side. Wasn't the original proposal for a tool that would actually flatten one side before planing the other? Yep (says the Original Poster) -- the tool I'm working on WILL do both. (Why do you say the Rikon won't? It looks like a jointer on top / planer underneath combo.....) Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
Buddy Matlosz wrote: Andrew, In addition to the other advice and links you've received, here's another tip for you as an "amateur inventor": next time you have an idea, don't broadcast it all over usenet (or anywhere else) - if it's a good idea, someone will grab it and run with it so fast it'll make your head spin. Take it in person to a few knowledgeable people and have them sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement B. Buddy, Thanks for the advice. Way back as a wee lad, I used to run workshops for inventors, for the SBA and the SBDCs in a western state. I also have a Wharton MBA, most of a law degree in intellectual property, and a lawyer father. Finally -- I work in the Shark Tank of Silicon Valley as a marketing executive. SO -- I know ALL about patents, inventions, and disclosure. I have a great law firm. And -- I haven't ACTUALLY "broadcast my idea all over usenet", if you look at it carefully. ;-) I've definitely asked people about whether they're interested in WHAT my widget CAN do. What I haven't done is describe HOW it does it. And therein, as the Bard said, lies the rub. Best wishes, though, and thanks for your concern, seriously! Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machineinstead...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:57:10 +0000, Steve Peterson wrote:
"J T" wrote in message ... Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 2:31am (Buddy Matlosz) doth sayeth: snip next time you have an idea, snip Might want to research it first. You can start he http://www.uspto.gov/. There is help for inventors with a new invention, and you can check the patent archives to see what has already been patented. Your patent has to be useful, but it also has to be novel and non-obvious. Once you have the patent application filed, you can go ahead and figure out how to manufacture, distribute and sell it. If you thought the original invention was a difficult challenge, you will find these to be nearly insurmountable and it is where most new inventions founder and die. It is a really good idea to find some company that can already provide these functions and license the invention to them. Royalty income is a nice addition to whatever you really live on, and keeps you from having to spend all your time on activities that probably don't interest you. And even if you like manufacturing, you may hate distribution or sales. If you figure out a relatively painless way to solve these problems, let me know. I have a novelty ruler that measures in astronomical units, atoparsecs. Every amateur astronomer should have one. Good luck, Steve Thanks, Steve. I think I just posted something to the effect of: I know the patent system well. (In fact, I've searched every possible patent in the particular class I need, and have about 2-300 patents retrieved and printed out -- I have a script that fetches them from uspto.gov and converts them to PDFs.) I'm in Silicon Valley, have an MBA from a top-3 school, and know intellectual property law pretty darn well -- but, sincerely, thanks! I'm intrigued by your ruler that measures in attoparsecs (you misspelled the unit) -- but I find 1.21483474 inches, or 3.08568025 centimeters, to be an inconvenient unit of measure. That's just me. By the way, how much do you weigh in yottadaltons? Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
"Mike Berger" wrote in message ... The Rikon product doesn't do what the original poster said. It won't plane a flat surface on board, it will only plane a surface parallel to the other side. Wasn't the original proposal for a tool that would actually flatten one side before planing the other? Umm Yes it will. It is a jointer on top and a planer underneath. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
"Andrew" wrote in message oups.com... Buddy Matlosz wrote: Andrew, In addition to the other advice and links you've received, here's another tip for you as an "amateur inventor": next time you have an idea, don't broadcast it all over usenet (or anywhere else) - if it's a good idea, someone will grab it and run with it so fast it'll make your head spin. Take it in person to a few knowledgeable people and have them sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement B. Buddy, Thanks for the advice. Way back as a wee lad, I used to run workshops for inventors, for the SBA and the SBDCs in a western state. I also have a Wharton MBA, most of a law degree in intellectual property, and a lawyer father. Finally -- I work in the Shark Tank of Silicon Valley as a marketing executive. SO -- I know ALL about patents, inventions, and disclosure. I have a great law firm. And -- I haven't ACTUALLY "broadcast my idea all over usenet", if you look at it carefully. ;-) I've definitely asked people about whether they're interested in WHAT my widget CAN do. What I haven't done is describe HOW it does it. And therein, as the Bard said, lies the rub. Best wishes, though, and thanks for your concern, seriously! Andrew Hey, no prob. Always happy to help a newbie. Think I'll crawl back in my hole now. B. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: onemachineinstead...
|
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machineinstead...
I already weigh too much in pounds. Now you want to know in daltons? I
don't want to think about it. Steve btw, I have 15 patents. just trying to steer anyone in the right direction. "Nobody" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:57:10 +0000, Steve Peterson wrote: "J T" wrote in message ... Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 2:31am (Buddy Matlosz) doth sayeth: snip next time you have an idea, snip Might want to research it first. You can start he http://www.uspto.gov/. There is help for inventors with a new invention, and you can check the patent archives to see what has already been patented. Your patent has to be useful, but it also has to be novel and non-obvious. Once you have the patent application filed, you can go ahead and figure out how to manufacture, distribute and sell it. If you thought the original invention was a difficult challenge, you will find these to be nearly insurmountable and it is where most new inventions founder and die. It is a really good idea to find some company that can already provide these functions and license the invention to them. Royalty income is a nice addition to whatever you really live on, and keeps you from having to spend all your time on activities that probably don't interest you. And even if you like manufacturing, you may hate distribution or sales. If you figure out a relatively painless way to solve these problems, let me know. I have a novelty ruler that measures in astronomical units, atoparsecs. Every amateur astronomer should have one. Good luck, Steve Thanks, Steve. I think I just posted something to the effect of: I know the patent system well. (In fact, I've searched every possible patent in the particular class I need, and have about 2-300 patents retrieved and printed out -- I have a script that fetches them from uspto.gov and converts them to PDFs.) I'm in Silicon Valley, have an MBA from a top-3 school, and know intellectual property law pretty darn well -- but, sincerely, thanks! I'm intrigued by your ruler that measures in attoparsecs (you misspelled the unit) -- but I find 1.21483474 inches, or 3.08568025 centimeters, to be an inconvenient unit of measure. That's just me. By the way, how much do you weigh in yottadaltons? Andrew |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:38:35 +0000, Leon wrote:
"Mike Berger" wrote in message ... The Rikon product doesn't do what the original poster said. It won't plane a flat surface on board, it will only plane a surface parallel to the other side. Wasn't the original proposal for a tool that would actually flatten one side before planing the other? Umm Yes it will. It is a jointer on top and a planer underneath. Ummm -- sorry -- YOU misunderstood. The ORIGINAL proposal (which was mine), does NOT have a jointer on top and a planer underneath). |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:38:35 +0000, Leon wrote:
"Mike Berger" wrote in message ... The Rikon product doesn't do what the original poster said. It won't plane a flat surface on board, it will only plane a surface parallel to the other side. Wasn't the original proposal for a tool that would actually flatten one side before planing the other? Umm Yes it will. It is a jointer on top and a planer underneath. Oops - sorry - now I understand what you meant. I suppose the Rikon would, indeed, do that. |
New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)
"Nobody" wrote in message ... Oops - sorry - now I understand what you meant. I suppose the Rikon would, indeed, do that. :~) No prob. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter