I tried an experiment cove cutting both pine and white oak using a
Forrest WWII going both right and left across a blade tilted at 20
degrees. I did not see much difference and it appeared that going
across the blade left to right on a right tilt saw with the 20 degrees
of tilt produced a slightly smoother cut. I did not notice any real
difference in the force of pushing the work into the blade. Not
scientific, but it will take a much better test to detect any real
difference. Can anyone give any different experience from tests both
ways?

Anyway, pushing from left to right could be done with the right hand if
you were standing near the end of the saw on the left side. This gives
much more room for the canted fence on the table. See below

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...cutting001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...cutting002.jpg

Now if I can attach the canted fence to the Unifence somehow, it would
be easy to move the canted fence parallel by moving the normal
Unifence. That way I could create the same cove on different sides of
a rectangular piece of stock without complex repositioning. All I
would have to do is move the Unifence, not the angle.

Any thoughts of how to best accomplish this from my photos?

I posted this in an earlier thread I had started, but I was afraid it
might get lost, so if you see this twice...sorry.

"eganders" wrote in message
oups.com...
I tried an experiment cove cutting both pine and white oak using a
Forrest WWII going both right and left across a blade tilted at 20
degrees. I did not see much difference and it appeared that going
across the blade left to right on a right tilt saw with the 20 degrees
of tilt produced a slightly smoother cut. I did not notice any real
difference in the force of pushing the work into the blade. Not
scientific, but it will take a much better test to detect any real
difference. Can anyone give any different experience from tests both
ways?

Anyway, pushing from left to right could be done with the right hand if
you were standing near the end of the saw on the left side. This gives
much more room for the canted fence on the table. See below

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...cutting001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...cutting002.jpg

Now if I can attach the canted fence to the Unifence somehow, it would
be easy to move the canted fence parallel by moving the normal
Unifence. That way I could create the same cove on different sides of
a rectangular piece of stock without complex repositioning. All I
would have to do is move the Unifence, not the angle.

Any thoughts of how to best accomplish this from my photos?

I posted this in an earlier thread I had started, but I was afraid it
might get lost, so if you see this twice...sorry.


The only suggestion I could add other than use a straight edge clamped to
the table and forget the fence is to REMOVE the Forrest blade and use a
cheap one.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 05:02:58 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

The only suggestion I could add other than use a straight edge clamped to
the table and forget the fence is to REMOVE the Forrest blade and use a
cheap one.

I had always been doing it with a cheap 9" 30 tooth blade, but I had
also always only done it with the grain, ie for putting a cove around
a mitered frame. When I tried to do it recently on a maple panel I
got really terrible results across the grain - including some tearout
at the bottom that would be more than sanding/scraping could fix. I
used that as an excuse to buy a vertical panel router bit, but I'd
suggest cheap blade, with lots of teeth.


-Leuf

"Leuf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 05:02:58 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

The only suggestion I could add other than use a straight edge clamped to
the table and forget the fence is to REMOVE the Forrest blade and use a
cheap one.

I had always been doing it with a cheap 9" 30 tooth blade, but I had
also always only done it with the grain, ie for putting a cove around
a mitered frame. When I tried to do it recently on a maple panel I
got really terrible results across the grain - including some tearout
at the bottom that would be more than sanding/scraping could fix. I
used that as an excuse to buy a vertical panel router bit, but I'd
suggest cheap blade, with lots of teeth.


-Leuf

My concern is with the rough treatment and side load being introduced to a
blade manufactured to tight tolerances like the Forrest is.
It would be a shame if the blade no long cut as smoothly after cutting a
cove with one.

"eganders" wrote in message
oups.com...
I tried an experiment cove cutting both pine and white oak using a
Forrest WWII going both right and left across a blade tilted at 20
degrees. I did not see much difference and it appeared that going
across the blade left to right on a right tilt saw with the 20 degrees
of tilt produced a slightly smoother cut. I did not notice any real
difference in the force of pushing the work into the blade. Not
scientific, but it will take a much better test to detect any real
difference. Can anyone give any different experience from tests both
ways?

Anyway, pushing from left to right could be done with the right hand if
you were standing near the end of the saw on the left side. This gives
much more room for the canted fence on the table. See below

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...cutting001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...cutting002.jpg

Now if I can attach the canted fence to the Unifence somehow, it would
be easy to move the canted fence parallel by moving the normal
Unifence. That way I could create the same cove on different sides of
a rectangular piece of stock without complex repositioning. All I
would have to do is move the Unifence, not the angle.

Any thoughts of how to best accomplish this from my photos?

I posted this in an earlier thread I had started, but I was afraid it
might get lost, so if you see this twice...sorry.


When I made a cove cut, I found that my 24 tooth ripping blade (custom built
locally) produced the fastest cuts. I could take 1/8" + deep cuts with
little effort and the cut cleaned up easily with a scraper that I ground to
fit the cove. I trapped the cove piece between two securely clamped fences.

If I was going to do it again, I would make a set of fences, attached to a
1/4" piece of melamine. The melamine would then be clamped to the table.
This would allow me to reproduce the cove should I need make more of it.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:46:20 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

My concern is with the rough treatment and side load being introduced to a
blade manufactured to tight tolerances like the Forrest is.
It would be a shame if the blade no long cut as smoothly after cutting a
cove with one.

It also puts a lot of wear on one corner, particularly on the teeth
with a point on that side. I tried it with a dado blade once, I
wanted the smaller radius and figured thicker body would be a lot
better than my thin-kerfs. I was pretty horrified at how much wear
was on every third tooth.


-Leuf

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:53:10 -0700, "Teamcasa"
wrote:

When I made a cove cut, I found that my 24 tooth ripping blade (custom built
locally) produced the fastest cuts. I could take 1/8" + deep cuts with
little effort and the cut cleaned up easily with a scraper that I ground to
fit the cove. I trapped the cove piece between two securely clamped fences.

You didn't have any trouble with tearout going across the grain? This
is what happened with my 30 tooth blade:

http://www.krtwood.com/DSCN2854.jpg

I milled a tongue on it after so I could fit up the panel while
waiting on my router bit to get here, and this is after knocking off
the worst of the frizzies. The edge looked like a frayed piece of
cloth.


-Leuf