I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

-Steve





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
wrote:

I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

-Steve


Sounds like I've been doing it wrong all these years, yet not a single
piece has fallen apart do to a bad glue up. I drive a truck--it can
haul a lot more wood than a Bently. Find it hard to believe FWW would
have such an article.

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, "C & S"
wrote:

What say you?


Turn the page. G

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

C & S wrote:
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our
work. While Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he
makes the assertion that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of
clamping force to glue together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not
even the optimal number, that's his recommended number. Please
please please, just show us the graph with the sweet spot of glue
joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going
to have to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of
pressure when assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent
clamp collection and I think I could get about 15% of the way there
with about every clamp I own (those fancy bessy's are only good for
370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure
(470
lbs.) out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet
Master/Bessy)) clamp. I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science"
does not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue
joint failure that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}.
Rabeij's conclusion is akin to saying that we should all drive a
$259K Bently because Bently can make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

A quick look at the FPL handbook(
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp...tr113/ch09.pdf ) reveals
that the recommended clamping pressure range is 100-247 psi, with
further notes that this depends not only on the density of the wood
but also on the viscosity of the adhesive and the quality of the
surface, and that too thin a glue line is as bad as too thick, with an
optimal thickness of .003-.006 inches.

Now it might be that he's bonding with some ancient almost-dried-out
Titebond that gives him a good glue line at the pressures that he's
using or it might be that he has access to some newer research or it
might be that he's full of crap.

Personally though, given the choice between Forest Products
Laboratories and the unsupported opinion of some unknown art
professor, I'll take FPL.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Oct 5, 6:43 am, "C & S" wrote:
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

Sounds simply stupid. Hard to believe it was in FWW. Maybe he put
the decimal in the wrong place.

R

On Oct 5, 6:05 am, B A R R Y wrote:


Turn the page. G

You bet. That's the reason I subscribe to PC World, not FWW. Their
articles are more and more suspect in their quality

OK, that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for guys
over 50.... ;^)

Robert

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 5, 6:43 am, "C & S" wrote:
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

Sounds simply stupid. Hard to believe it was in FWW. Maybe he put
the decimal in the wrong place.

The article is pretty lame, I just skimmed it. I agree w/ nailshooter's
comment above that FWW articles/editing have slipped drastically
recently. They have apparently been unable to replace the first
generation writers of the class of Tage Frid, et al. with anybody
approach their combination of skill and writing and in large part seem
to be reliant on submitted articles from wanna-be-published's for
content. They also made conscious editorial change to put in much
higher percentage of stuff for newcomers which has probably increased
circulation at the cost of lower level of article.

Speaking of lame articles, there was a response to some of the criticism
of the bandsaw evaluation article that was also extremely lame (the
response as well as the article ). A Rikon rep went by and saw the
setup after the fact apparently and pointed out they reproduced the rip
test w/ drastically faster results.

The rebuttal was that while the FWW article mis-identified the blade
used for their tests as a hook-tooth when in fact it was a skip-tooth
blade they stood by the relative rankings of their testing with still
nary a word to justify the gross discrepancies.

WMH wrote in to affirm the earlier information I found in trying to dig
out any possible reasons for the discrepances of there being an
alignment problem with the riser kits for the Jet and Powermatic saws
which caused the alignment "issues" for which there is tech support to
resolve.

Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
I've subscribed since about Vol 2, but if it weren't for that longtime
inertia doubt would any longer...

--

wrote in message
ups.com...


OK, that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for guys
over 50.... ;^)

Robert


I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)

that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number,
that's
his recommended number.

I thought the article last month saying that yellow glue was stronger than
epoxy or poly in gap filling was pretty stupid.
Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.

"dpb" wrote

Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.
I've subscribed since about Vol 2, but if it weren't for that longtime
inertia doubt would any longer...

I've mentioned before the obvious lameness of some of the "methods of work"
and "tips and tricks" in woodworking magazines in general the past few
years. Also noteworthy is the general increase in contentiousness of
"letter's to the editor's" in these same magazines since the advent of
inclusion of "e-mail".

Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm (the general 'dumbing down')? ...
probably not too far off the mark.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" wrote:


Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.



Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:43:05 -0400, C & S wrote:

I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue ...

Between that and the recent bandsaw fiasco, Fine WW may soon become "Final".

C & S wrote:
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple.

Franklin recommends 175-250psi for Titebond III on hardwoods.

I know a local maker of bass guitars that uses a 20-ton steel press for
gluing up laminated body blanks. He uses custom-made 1-inch thick steel
plates top and bottom because weaker materials kept bending.

Of course you can get very acceptable joints with much less pressure
than this, especially if your mating surfaces are well machined and in
good condition.

Chris

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:41:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.

I agree with everything said. I consider myself a beginning
woodworker and look to FWW and other sources for expert and
trustworthy advice.

The "trustworthy" part is very important. What happens when something
is published that I know enough about to know is wrong, is that it
then casts suspicion on everything else that is published that I don't
know anything about.

Even as a beginner I'm seeing the "dumbing down" and repetition of
content. Handcut dovetails have pretty much been covered before
haven't they?

And another time that is really ****ing me off is this trend of having
"additional content" on a website. (At extra cost, of course.) I'm in
the country with no available broadband, so subscribing to get video
feeds is out of the question. That's why I want a paper copy, but
somehow I don't think FWW or FHB is listening to me.

On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" wrote:
snip

What say you?

This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
It also happened to American Woodworker when Reader's Digest took
over. Out with all the old experts and in with a bunch of
journalists. The difference with FWW is that it's been happening
slowly, over a long period of time (since the early 90's). It
happened all at once with AW. None of the magazines want real
(educated) technical expertise - not even if it is offered for free.
I'm sure the journalists are making that call too. You can expect
this to continue until one magazine suddenly realizes that they can
make money by providing correct, technically accurate, useful info.

I registered on the Taunton web site so that I could read their
forums. BIG mistake. Now I get spam from them every day. I think
I've seen 200-300 "Last chance for free shipping" messages (how many
"last" chances can one get?). So, I guess the MBAs have taken over
the marketing department too.

Ed Bennett


http://www.ts-aligner.com
Home of the TS-Aligner

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
C & S wrote:
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work.
While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the
assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple.

Franklin recommends 175-250psi for Titebond III on hardwoods.

I know a local maker of bass guitars that uses a 20-ton steel press for
gluing up laminated body blanks. He uses custom-made 1-inch thick steel
plates top and bottom because weaker materials kept bending.

Of course you can get very acceptable joints with much less pressure than
this, especially if your mating surfaces are well machined and in good
condition.

But how much pressure is it, really? 20 tons spread over one square foot is
277 lbs/sq. inch.

- Owen -

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:41:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

Overall, it's getting where except for the eye candy of the user work in
Readers' Gallery and an occasional article it's surely losing its value.

I agree with everything said. I consider myself a beginning
woodworker and look to FWW and other sources for expert and
trustworthy advice.

The "trustworthy" part is very important. What happens when something
is published that I know enough about to know is wrong, is that it
then casts suspicion on everything else that is published that I don't
know anything about.

Even as a beginner I'm seeing the "dumbing down" and repetition of
content. Handcut dovetails have pretty much been covered before
haven't they?

And another time that is really ****ing me off is this trend of having
"additional content" on a website. (At extra cost, of course.) I'm in
the country with no available broadband, so subscribing to get video
feeds is out of the question. That's why I want a paper copy, but
somehow I don't think FWW or FHB is listening to me.

Same here on the broadband unavailability and ticked off about
added-cost web sites. Of course, the Taunton site was always so slow as
to be essentially unusable anyway, so it's not like we really lost
anything except the potential...

As last followup on the gluing clamping force article --

I looked for the corroborating science behind Dr. Rabiej's article on
his web site -- http://roman.rabiej.com/cv/

The only published articles on glueline strength all have to do with
laser-cut materials, not normal shop panel glueups. Under those
conditions, I could _perhaps_ believe something differing from previous
experience, but it's simply ridiculous to publish an article as was done
that so much flies in the face of experience without at least a
reference to the science behind the work claimed to support the conclusions.

These are typical research projects found above, none of which could I
find actual articles online for...

Optimizing Glueline Strength of Laser-Cut Hardwoods. Funded by the
United States Department of Agriculture.

Factors Affecting the Magnitude of Glueline Shear Strength Between
Veneering and Particleboard Substrate. Funded by Karona, Inc. in Grand
Rapids, MI.

Gluability of Wood on a Laser-Cut Kerf. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Automated Lumber Processing Systems and
Laser Machining of Wood. MSU. June 1994.

Factors Affecting the Load Bearing Capacity of MOD-EEZ Connectors.
Forest Products Journal, 43(9):49-57, 1993.

Glueline Shear Strength of Laser-Cut Wood. Forest Products Journal
43(2):45-54, 1993.

The Effect of Clamping Pressure and Orthotropic Wood Structure on the
Strength of Glued Bonds, Wood and Fiber Science Vol. 24, No. 3, July 1992.

One assumes that the last might have the basis for much in the article.

Well, the text of the article is protected content, but the abstract is
available.

http://swst.metapress.com/content/1050536165217317/?p=8b5006db06be4640acd2801679e46c4e&pi=3

R. J. Rabiej, Associate Professor1, H. D. Behm, Professor and Chairman

Department of Engineering Technology College of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Abstract

Reference values for compression strength perpendicular to the grain
were determined for radial and tangential sections of samples of sugar
maple and ponderosa pine. Samples to be glued were matched according to
specific gravity and orthotropic structure and bonded along the grain in
tangential or radial sections. Magnitude of clamp pressure was
controlled throughout a range of pressures commonly applied in industry,
up to about 80% of the compression strength of the wood sample. Tests
were conducted on the bonded samples to determine glueline shear
strength and percent of wood failure at the bonded surfaces. Results
were subjected to regression analysis to ascertain relationships. It was
determined that clamping pressure had a different effect on both shear
strength and percent of wood failure depending on species and
orthotropic section. It is possible to maximize joint strength by
applying proper clamping pressure. Results similar in direction but
differing in magnitude were obtained with both PVAc and U-F adhesives. A
generalized measure of clamping pressure was defined as the ratio of
applied clamping pressure to the compression strength (CP/CS) of the
wood section to be glued. Using this concept, the optimum clamping
pressure for sugar maple was found to be 0.3 times compression strength
using U-F glue and 0.5 times using PVAc glue. This approach to
determining reliable clamping pressure data can lead to improved gluing
practice and more precise testing procedures.

\endquote

So, using the data from FPL at
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/HardwoodNA/htmlDocs/acersp1.html,
the compression strength for dry sugar maple perpendicular to the grain
direction is 1470 psi. Half of that would be 735 psi for his optimum by
my reckoning. That's at least in the ballpark of his table values so
guess the paper probably does form the basis for the article.

How applicable it is to "ordinary" woodworking and, most interestingly,
how "peaked" is the maximum of his regression curve and what other
factors were controlled (and not controlled) would be of interest and
necessary to know something of in order to judge if there's anything in
the article pertinent to typical work of the type done by FWW's readership.

I seriously doubt there's much work been done by the past masters that
seems to have survived quite nicely that had anything even remotely
approaching those kinds of clamping pressures. And, interestingly
enough, later on in the same issue there's an article that extolls the
use of the old wooden screw clamp (w/ whose flavor I'm quite consonant,
btw)....

--

Ed Bennett wrote:
On Oct 5, 4:43 am, "C & S" wrote:
snip

What say you?

This is what happens when you let journalists pretend to be experts.
It also happened to American Woodworker when Reader's Digest took
over. Out with all the old experts and in with a bunch of
journalists. The difference with FWW is that it's been happening
slowly, over a long period of time (since the early 90's). It
happened all at once with AW. None of the magazines want real
(educated) technical expertise - not even if it is offered for free.
....

Well, in this case the author is actually a PhD in Industrial Technology
specializing in furniture manufacturing technology it appears. See my
earlier response.

It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
research to the task at hand...

--

Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 6:43am (C*&*S) doth
posteth:
snip While Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he
makes the assertion that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of
clamping force snip
What say you?

Sounds like he can't blind anyone with is "science", so he's trying
to baffle with bull****.

The other day I glued two pieces of wood, making a specialized,
quicky, one-time use, planer sled. The top piece kept tipping, so I
used a few pound lead weight on it, to hold it in place. Titebond II,
as usual, and if I'd wanted to part the joint the next day, I'd have had
to saw it apart, or beat it with a hammer. If it hadn't tipped, I'd
probably still have used a weight, because, while the joint would have
held (for sure stronger than the wood), I've found that sometimes the
top piece will creep a bit without. Most of the time I clamp, or
heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
200 pounds pressure.



JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:58:43 -0500, "Leon"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...


OK, that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for guys
over 50.... ;^)

Robert


I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)



And how does AARP know I'm over 50? Is there any way to tell AARP
that I'm really dead?

Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 11:01am (EDT+4) (Phisherman) doth
sayeth:
Sounds like I've been doing it wrong all these years, yet not a single
piece has fallen apart do to a bad glue up. snip

Had one glue joint fail. With Titebond II that had been below 50
degrees. Nice looking joint, but it popped apart with just a bit of
pressure. Called the Titebond people (there IS a 1-800 number on the
back of each container, for those of you without a clue), and, if I
recall right, this was some years back, warmed it up, added a bit of
water, shook the snot out of it. Whatever they told me, it worked, and
the rest of the container performed quite satisfactorily. I still use
Titebond II, and now make sure it doesn't stay overnight in the shop in
the winter.



JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."

Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 7:24am (EDT-3)
snip that and the fact there aren't any decent men's magazines for
guys over 50.... * * * ;^)

Hah! WoodenBoat, and CarCraft.



JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."

Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 9:58am (EDT-1) (Leon)
doth claimeth:
I'll set you up for that AARP magazine. ;~)

Tried it. Didn't renew. It's for "old" people.



JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."

"dpb" wrote

It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
research to the task at hand...

While the OP doesn't say what type of glue the article references, it makes
you wonder how many thousands of pounds/sq in clamping force Stradivarius
used on those violins still being played?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"dpb" wrote

It appears there is some actual basis for the claims made, what isn't
possible to determine from the article is the applicability of the
research to the task at hand...

While the OP doesn't say what type of glue the article references, it makes
you wonder how many thousands of pounds/sq in clamping force Stradivarius
used on those violins still being played?

What the article says is "I'll assume you're using yellow (polyvinyl
acetate--PVA) glue..."

The tome I posted previously that reference one of the good doctor's
published papers used PVAc and U-F according to the abstract I was able
to find.

Well, of course ol' Strad had the advantage of dividing by a small
denominator to raise the pressure significantly...

Although, had they even invented pressure back then? vbg

--

J T wrote:
Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 6:43am (C & S) doth
posteth:
snip While Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he
makes the assertion that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of
clamping force snip
What say you?

Sounds like he can't blind anyone with is "science", so he's trying
to baffle with bull****.

dpb linked to the abstract for one of the articles:

http://swst.metapress.com/content/1050536165217317/?p=8b5006db06be4640acd2801679e46c4e&pi=3

Basically, according to that article the optimum gluing pressure for PVA
and sugar maple is .5 times the compression strength, or around 735psi.

However, they don't show the psi/glue strength curve, so the amount of
strength loss at lower clamping pressures is not discussed.

Chris

"dpb" wrote in message

Although, had they even invented pressure back then? vbg

I'm often convinced it was invented strictly for my benefit ... parental,
marital and financial.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Oct 5, 11:23 am, "Swingman" wrote:


Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm.

........now WHO is supposed to be the long-hair? *snickers*

R. J. Rabiej, Associate Professor1, H. D. Behm, Professor and Chairman


"Results were subjected to regression analysis to ascertain
relationships."

Well, ****... that explains it.

On Oct 5, 3:10 pm, (J T) wrote:
Most of the time I clamp, or
heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
200 pounds pressure.

Case in point: Look at all the laminating and veneering marvels taking
place at a mere 14.6 PSIG..... in a vacuum bag.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
On Oct 5, 11:23 am, "Swingman" wrote:


Macrocosm reflecting the microcosm.

.......now WHO is supposed to be the long-hair? *snickers*

That's what an education will get you, Bubba ... a snicker? Besides, I
hardly have enough to cover my ears.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Oct 5, 5:41 pm, "Swingman" wrote:


Besides, I hardly have enough to cover my ears.

Pretty soon I can cover MY ears from the inside out.

*smirk*

On Oct 5, 5:40 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 5, 3:10 pm, (J T) wrote:
Most of the time I clamp, or

heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
200 pounds pressure.

Case in point: Look at all the laminating and veneering marvels taking
place at a mere 14.6 PSIG..... in a vacuum bag.

make that PSIA

Robatoy wrote:
R. J. Rabiej, Associate Professor1, H. D. Behm, Professor and Chairman


"Results were subjected to regression analysis to ascertain
relationships."

Well, ****... that explains it.



--

On Oct 5, 4:56?pm, B A R R Y wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.

Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.


Woodworking with Don Martin. That I would LOVE to have seen!

FoggyTown

On Oct 5, 11:43?am, "C & S" wrote:
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work. While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number, that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470 lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy)) clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

-Steve

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

So how does this reconcile with Norm's constant advice not to clamp
tight enough to squeeze the glue out of the joint? I'd have thought
that going for 1,200 lb/sq in would have squeezed every atom of glue
out long before it even got there.

FoggyTown

on 10/5/2007 6:07 PM FoggyTown said the following:
On Oct 5, 4:56?pm, B A R R Y wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:07 GMT, "Toller" wrote:


Maybe it has changed to being a humor magazine.

Maybe next month will feature Alfred E. Newman on the cover.



Woodworking with Don Martin. That I would LOVE to have seen!

FoggyTown


How about the Furniture Guys from TV, Ed Feldman and Joe L'Erario?
I mistakenly typed 'furniture gays' in Google, but I don't think it was
too far off. :-)


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Fri, Oct 5, 2007, 2:43pm (EDT-3) (Robatoy) doth
sayeth:
Pretty soon I can cover MY ears from the inside out.

Now you know the reason fire was stolen from the Gods.



JOAT
"I'm an Igor, thur. We don't athk quethtionth."
"Really? Why not?"
"I don't know, thur. I didn't athk."

In article om,
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 5, 3:10 pm, (J T) wrote:
Most of the time I clamp, or
heavier weight, but I'd say probably seldom, if ever, anywhere near even
200 pounds pressure.

Case in point: Look at all the laminating and veneering marvels taking
place at a mere 14.6 PSIG..... in a vacuum bag.

WHAT?!?!?!?

You don't have a high pressure chamber (that you can pressurize to 2000 PSI)
with an attached vacuum line to deal with leakage.

You know, make your veneer sandwich in plastic bag. Enter pressure chamber.
Attach vacuum line. Exit pressure chamber. Start vacuum. Start pressure
(don't forget the 400 degree F heat) and wait while your new masterpiece
is fused into one indivisable whole.

Your bench is doomed. --dave
"C & S" wrote in message
.. .
I just received FWW 194 in the mail. The article "Get Serious About
Clamping" attempts to tell us that we are all underclamping our work.
While
Roman Rabeij chose not to "blind us with the science" he makes the
assertion
that we really ought to have 1200 lbs/sq inch of clamping force to glue
together flatsawn sugar maple. That was not even the optimal number,
that's
his recommended number. Please please please, just show us the graph with
the sweet spot of glue joint failure to clamps required.

My main bench is 3 inches thick and about 6 feet long. Am I going to
have
to scrap my bench because I did not apply 259,000 lbs of pressure when
assembling those laminations? I have a pretty decent clamp collection and
I
think I could get about 15% of the way there with about every clamp I own
(those fancy bessy's are only good for 370 lbs of squish y'know).

*** as an asside, he claims that het gets more clamping pressure (470
lbs.)
out of a quick-grip clamp than a parallel jaw (Cabinet Master/Bessy))
clamp.
I find that a bit hard to swallow.

My take on the article, on the whole, was that his uncited "science" does
not jive with my practical experience. I have never had a glue joint
failure
that could not be attributed to sloppy joinery :-}. Rabeij's conclusion is
akin to saying that we should all drive a $259K Bently because Bently can
make a better sedan than Honda.

What say you?

-Steve





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com