Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I understand that if one does this sequence, why it is necessary to
repeat edge jointing and ripping (steps 5 and 6) for the stock to be
square. What I would like to understand is how the 6-step method
squares stock better than the 4-step. Or, what is the reason that the
4-step fails to square stock?

Thanks in advance.

Bob

"rjdankert" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I understand that if one does this sequence, why it is necessary to
repeat edge jointing and ripping (steps 5 and 6) for the stock to be
square. What I would like to understand is how the 6-step method
squares stock better than the 4-step. Or, what is the reason that the
4-step fails to square stock?

I don't see anything gained by first edge jointing and ripping; it seems
like a waste of time and wood. You have to do it again because the first
time probably isn't square to the face. Doesn't Huey give an explanation?

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)


I don't like edge jointing a wavy board. Can you guess why??

Dave

In article .com, "rjdankert" wrote:
Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

That's one way, yes. The order isn't written in stone, though. 2 must precede
4, and 1 must precede 2 and 3 (hence 4 also). So the order 1-3-2-4 works also.

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I understand that if one does this sequence, why it is necessary to
repeat edge jointing and ripping (steps 5 and 6) for the stock to be
square.

Because it's the next thing to impossible to joint a face square to an
already-jointed edge -- the edge is just too small a surface to be able to
reference it accurately against the fence. To get the edge and face square, it
is imperative to joint the face first, then square the edge to the face.

What I would like to understand is how the 6-step method
squares stock better than the 4-step.

It doesn't.

Or, what is the reason that the
4-step fails to square stock?

It doesn't.

In my opinion, the *only* reason for doing the six-step procedure listed above
is if you're working with stock that's too wide for your jointer. In that
case, you want to rip it into pieces narrow enough for the jointer and then
edge-glue it back together -- and you'd better edge-joint it first before
ripping it, or else your rip cut(s) won't be straight.

Note that if the stock is not pretty close to flat already (not twisted or
cupped), trying to rip it on a table saw can be quite dangerous. It's better
to use a band saw for the rip cuts. It's better still to use stock that's
already nearly flat... but the world is often an imperfect place. :-)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

rjdankert wrote:

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I understand that if one does this sequence, why it is necessary to
repeat edge jointing and ripping (steps 5 and 6) for the stock to be
square.

In the sequence above, the first edge joint was done before the face
jointing, so it isn't necessarily pependicular to the face. Ditto for
the ripped edge.

One major problem with the suggested technique is that you can't safely
rip twisted boards on a tablesaw. With a bandsaw it would work.

It really doesn't matter what order you use, as long as you get there in
the end. I think the following pattern makes the most sense:

face joint
plane
edge joint (because you planed first, you can now put either face
against the fence)
rip

Of course, all of this works most efficiently if you trim the rough
board close to the dimensions that you'll need before doing any of the
above. That way you don't need to remove as much wood.

You might want to read "Flat, Straight and Squa Simple milling
sequence yields true stock", in FWW #102.

Chris

In article .com,
rjdankert wrote:
Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I understand that if one does this sequence, why it is necessary to
repeat edge jointing and ripping (steps 5 and 6) for the stock to be
square. What I would like to understand is how the 6-step method
squares stock better than the 4-step. Or, what is the reason that the
4-step fails to square stock?

Thanks in advance.

Bob


I didn't see the article you mentioned, but I've seen lots of articles
that use the 4 step method you list first. It's the customary and
accepted way of doing it. The only thing I could add, is if you know
what you are building, cut to rough length before milling. Does the
author give any reason in the article for that sequence? Seems to me,
in the case of twisted or bowed lumber, it might not even work. If
somehow you were able to joint a straight edge onto a twisted board,
(I know, I know, hand plane would do it) how could it then be ripped
accurately, when it wouldn't even lay flat on the table saw?

--
No dumb questions, just dumb answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland -

rjdankert wrote:
Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

I like to do this on good condition boards:

1.) Rough cut to length
2.) face joint
3.) plane
4.) edge joint
5.) rip

Why? With both faces surfaced, it's easier to pick the "keeper" edge
and choose a direction of travel for edge jointing, and I have either
face available to face the jointer fence.

If the board is twisted or badly cupped, I'll get it closer to final
size with the band saw (ripping) or hand planes (cups & twist
correction), before step 2.

On Oct 10, 8:18 pm, "Toller" wrote:
"rjdankert" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I understand that if one does this sequence, why it is necessary to
repeat edge jointing and ripping (steps 5 and 6) for the stock to be
square. What I would like to understand is how the 6-step method
squares stock better than the 4-step. Or, what is the reason that the
4-step fails to square stock?I don't see anything gained by first edge jointing and ripping; it seems
like a waste of time and wood. You have to do it again because the first
time probably isn't square to the face. Doesn't Huey give an explanation?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

In the opening paragraph, the author states: "But what you do, how you
do it, and in what order you do it will influence the project from
start to finish, and will make your projects run smoother." No reason
is given for why he takes the steps he does.

Ditto. The 4-step is just fine. keep doing that.

Of course, all of this works most efficiently if you trim the rough
board close to the dimensions that you'll need before doing any of the
above. That way you don't need to remove as much wood.

Agreed.

I think that is the point of the 6-step method... to get the board closer to
size, which I agree is generally a good thing. Any time you can manipulate a
smaller workpiece it is easier to get accurate results. Pushing an 8',
45lb. board over anything but a really big jointer requires specific
attention to technique and a bit grunting.

However, the safest way to rough cut potentially twisted stock is with a
bandsaw.

There is an additional benefit to the band saw as well. If the grain swoops
through the board (or is diagonal to the original edge) and you finished
pieces are relatively small, you mark out your rough cuts parallel to the
grain rather than parallel to the edge of the original board. Rough cut with
the bandsaw then proceed with the 4-step method.

If you don't have a band saw, a jig saw will work for this as well.

Cheers,

Steve

"rjdankert" wrote:

Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

That's the way I do it. The order of steps 2 and 3 could probably be
reversed, but as long as I am at the jointer...

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

I'd switch 4 and 5 (for convenience while working at the jointer)

What I would like to understand is how the 6-step method
squares stock better than the 4-step.
I don't think it does. Be interested to see any other responses you
get.

Or, what is the reason that the
4-step fails to square stock?
The only rationale I see for the first two steps is to get a board of
approximate width (or maybe remove crook) before the standard 4-step
process. E.g., if you want to prepare a two-inch wide board and have
some 7" wide rough stock, the first two steps could be used to get a
piece of 2.25" wide rough stock with parallel, straight, but maybe
twisted edges from which you would prepare stock using the standard
4-step process.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"rjdankert" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi, I am a new (wannabe) woodworker. I have recently aquired a jointer
and planer. The few boards I have prepared so far were done in 4 steps
(information I got from searching the "wreck"):

1.) face joint
2.) edge joint
3.) plane
4.) rip

With my limited experience, I was very interested in Glen Huey's recent
article in PW. This was a very good article and I feel I learned from
it. I am hoping that I can get one thing clarified for me. His
sequence is:

1.) edge joint
2.) rip
3.) face joint
4.) plane
5.) edge joint (again)
6.) rip (again)

snip

Depending on several variables, the 1-4 sequence may work fine.
First variable, Jointer size. If you have a 10" board and a 6" jointer then
you may have to face joint the board with your 12" planer and a sled or rip
it to 2-5" boards on the bandsaw....

Oh heck, the list of variables goes on and on. There is no one perfect step
for every condition. I generally use the 1-4 method but switch it up from
time to time.

Bottom line is be safe, conserve as much wood as possible, avoid repeating
steps and above all, have fun and make something nice!

Dave

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before planing, the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing. Why do it twice?

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. com...

I like to do this on good condition boards:

1.) Rough cut to length
2.) face joint
3.) plane
4.) edge joint
5.) rip

Why? With both faces surfaced, it's easier to pick the "keeper" edge
and choose a direction of travel for edge jointing, and I have either
face available to face the jointer fence.

If the board is twisted or badly cupped, I'll get it closer to final
size with the band saw (ripping) or hand planes (cups & twist
correction), before step 2.

"CW" wrote:

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before planing, the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing.

I don't understand how that can happen. One face is jointed, and an
edge is jointed to be perpendicular to that face. The planer makes the
other face parallel to the jointed face (an consequently also
perpendicular to the previously jointed edge). How does that affect
the previously jointed edge? Unless, of course, you are talking about
releasing tension in an improperly dried or reaction wood board, in
which case all bets are off on any easily described order of
proceeding.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy wrote:
"CW" wrote:

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before planing, the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing.

I don't understand how that can happen. One face is jointed, and an
edge is jointed to be perpendicular to that face. The planer makes the
other face parallel to the jointed face (an consequently also
perpendicular to the previously jointed edge). How does that affect
the previously jointed edge?

That edge can hit the internal fences or guides in the planer, or you
can bump the edge in the process of maneuvering around the planer.

B A R R Y wrote:

alexy wrote:
"CW" wrote:

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before planing, the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing.

I don't understand how that can happen. One face is jointed, and an
edge is jointed to be perpendicular to that face. The planer makes the
other face parallel to the jointed face (an consequently also
perpendicular to the previously jointed edge). How does that affect
the previously jointed edge?

That edge can hit the internal fences or guides in the planer, or you
can bump the edge in the process of maneuvering around the planer.

Well, sure, just like you can bump one of your planed faces on your
way back to the jointer. By "getting out of shape", I thought he was
talking about the basic shape (plane) formed in the jointing
operation.

BTW, your reasoning makes sense to me if you can't clearly see the
grain on the faces before machining. If the initially jointed face
shows that with that face against the fence, either edge will be
against the grain, then planing the other side to use as reference
face against the fence seems to be the only way to do it. If the
grain is visible before machining, I just mark its direction, and
choose the face to joint that face will allow me to joint the first
edge properly.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

I use the same philosophy prepping wood as I do metal (my day job). Do all
roughing work first, before any finish cuts. Any finish cuts done prior to
roughing another surface may or may not remain true. If they do, great. If
they don't, you have to do it again. Why take the chance? I don't own a
jointer nor do I want one. Don't need it. My sequence of operations is:
rough plain (hand) one face if needed. Rough plain edges if seriously out
(bark on, ect). Send them through the planer and plane to size. Finish plane
one edge. Rip opposite edge.

"alexy" wrote in message
...
"CW" wrote:

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before planing,
the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing.

I don't understand how that can happen. One face is jointed, and an
edge is jointed to be perpendicular to that face. The planer makes the
other face parallel to the jointed face (an consequently also
perpendicular to the previously jointed edge). How does that affect
the previously jointed edge? Unless, of course, you are talking about
releasing tension in an improperly dried or reaction wood board, in
which case all bets are off on any easily described order of
proceeding.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

Top posting fixed so that exchange flows naturally.

"CW" wrote:
"alexy" wrote in message
.. .
"CW" wrote:

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before planing,
the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing.

I don't understand how that can happen. One face is jointed, and an
edge is jointed to be perpendicular to that face. The planer makes the
other face parallel to the jointed face (an consequently also
perpendicular to the previously jointed edge). How does that affect
the previously jointed edge? Unless, of course, you are talking about
releasing tension in an improperly dried or reaction wood board, in
which case all bets are off on any easily described order of
proceeding.
--

I use the same philosophy prepping wood as I do metal (my day job). Do all
roughing work first, before any finish cuts. Any finish cuts done prior to
roughing another surface may or may not remain true. If they do, great. If
they don't, you have to do it again. Why take the chance? I don't own a
jointer nor do I want one. Don't need it. My sequence of operations is:
rough plain (hand) one face if needed. Rough plain edges if seriously out
(bark on, ect). Send them through the planer and plane to size. Finish plane
one edge. Rip opposite edge.

Aha, that's an added variable, and I absolutely agree. If your
jointing is by plane, I definitely would wait on the edges until both
faces are flat and parallel because both faces need to register to the
two faces of your vise. I still don't envision how the planing
operation could make a previously jointed edge no longer true, but I'd
definitely follow your order for hand jointing.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Well, whatever you have to say, I won't see it. You have just now done what
bottom posters seem so good at. Putting everything in such an order that
you have to wade through the garbage to get there. I'm not in the mood for
wading. Plonk.
"alexy" wrote in message
...
Top posting fixed so that exchange flows naturally.

"CW" wrote:
"alexy" wrote in message
.. .
"CW" wrote:

I agree with this. If the board is face and edge jointed before
planing,
the
chance is there for that jointed edge to get out of shape during the
planing, requiring re jointing.

I don't understand how that can happen. One face is jointed, and an
edge is jointed to be perpendicular to that face. The planer makes the
other face parallel to the jointed face (an consequently also
perpendicular to the previously jointed edge). How does that affect
the previously jointed edge? Unless, of course, you are talking about
releasing tension in an improperly dried or reaction wood board, in
which case all bets are off on any easily described order of
proceeding.
--

I use the same philosophy prepping wood as I do metal (my day job). Do
all
roughing work first, before any finish cuts. Any finish cuts done prior
to
roughing another surface may or may not remain true. If they do, great.
If
they don't, you have to do it again. Why take the chance? I don't own a
jointer nor do I want one. Don't need it. My sequence of operations is:
rough plain (hand) one face if needed. Rough plain edges if seriously out
(bark on, ect). Send them through the planer and plane to size. Finish
plane
one edge. Rip opposite edge.

Aha, that's an added variable, and I absolutely agree. If your
jointing is by plane, I definitely would wait on the edges until both
faces are flat and parallel because both faces need to register to the
two faces of your vise. I still don't envision how the planing
operation could make a previously jointed edge no longer true, but I'd
definitely follow your order for hand jointing.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

"CW" wrote:

Well, whatever you have to say, I won't see it. You have just now done what
bottom posters seem so good at. Putting everything in such an order that
you have to wade through the garbage to get there. I'm not in the mood for
wading. Plonk.

Wow! I went back to the message in question, and see exactly what you
mean. I had to push the page down key ONCE to get to the new text I
added to the message. What an extraordinary effort, and how
inconsiderate of me to put my text in such an order to create such an
inordinate waste of your valuable time. My humblest apologies.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.