Bay Area Dave wrote in message .com...
So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna
be judged by the company you keep.


I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge
of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your
flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your
prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of
knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows
me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to
slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.

Hmmmmmmmmm. So tough love is not your bag. Sucks for you, because in
your "failing to learn," anything new, you obviously skipped a
fundamental of planing, which was mentioned in that six-year old post,
and still holds true today. To wit - that one should maintain
downward pressure on the knob (toe) of the plane at the beginning of
the stroke, and then make sure to switch that pressure to the tote
(heel) near the end. This will prevent crowning of the edge.

It's a pity the mental equivalent of walking and chewing gum prevents
you from absorbing new knowledge, but I'm sure it won't ruin your day.
Enjoy your new plane when it arrives. Try not to use it on melamine.

O'Deen

Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't
mind.

"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message
...

"CW" wrote

: ............................... Longer planes,
: since they ride the high points, can not get down into the lows to plane
: them. So what you end up doing is knocking of those high spots. It still
: takes a bit of skill but it is easier with a longer plane. I'm not much
for
: explaining things but you probably get the idea.

Coming late into this ..............

It can be shown theoretically, and many know from experience, that all
hand
planes can plane a concave edge. The radius of the curve (assuming it to
be
circular, which it might not be) is proportional to the square of the
length
of the plane divided by the set.

So a 22" jointer set for a .001 shaving (a very skilled user) would have a
radius of 484,000 inches!!! That's gotta be pretty close to flat.

Hence the longer the plane, the nearer the curve is to a straight line.

This assumes normal operation of course, ie trying to plane a straight
edge
(ie not a convex one) with one continuous shaving from end to end.

Most of us want to form a slight concavity when jointing panels where
cramps
hold the material while the glue sets. This has the advantage that the
joint
is more likely to stay closed at the ends as the ends of the panels
shrink
in consequene of long term seasonal changes.

There's some that hold with this, some that don't. Graham Blackburn is one
that don't. See a previous item in this thread where I describe his "rub
joint". OK, I hadn't gotten that far yet, just look below. :-) I think
Graham just uses white glue. Go figure. Guess that's why they wait a bit
before setting the joint aside to dry. Personally, I'm still not absolutely
sold either way. However, there is a certain elegance to a low stress joint
that appeals to my sensitivity.

Depending on how 'perfectly' is defined, it is possible by some planing of
the ends to get two edges straight enough to exactly mate without cramp
pressure. This is how in the past, the workers made 'rubbed' joints with
instant-grabbing 'Scotch' glue (or to the Murricans, 'hide' glue).

Hot glue was applied to both edges, the boards were rubbed together to
remove surplus glue and the panel was laid aside to dry. I've seen men
show off by gluing a rubbed joint and immediately throwing the panel to
the
floor. In my youth I've done it to impress the multitude.

More about panel jointing on my web site - 'Planing Notes' - 'Rubbed
Jointing'.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

"Lawrence A. Ramsey" wrote in message
news
snip

It is
absolutlely incredible how sensitive the human body is; you can easily
feel a hair that is 1 thousandths of a inch thick. You can see that
closely also.


There was a time when I "could" see that closely. Sigh.

Cheers,
Eric

"Richards" wrote

: You've made a very good point. If the blade projects beneath the plane,
: the piece of wood that you're working on will never be perfectly flat
: because the reference surface is not the same as the cutting edge.
:
: To cut the wood perfectly flat, it seems that the plane should be
: divided into two separate pieces. The part of the plane that is in
: front of the blade could be raised to the height of the cut desired.
: The part of the plane that is behind the blade should be set so that the
: blade and the sole of the plane are at the same level.

On my web site is the result of an experiment that relates to this point.

Please look at 'Planing Notes' - 'Plane Body Deflection'.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email address is username@ISP
username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
Website www.amgron.clara.net

Doug Winterburn wrote:
It seems a motion has been made for a vote. I second it and also vote
"Naaaaaah".

I'll go a step further. A lazy question leading to an annoying thread
with a good outcome, hearing from O'Deen again.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net

Trent Sauder writes:


You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.


Thank you.

But its not that difficult. Its done all the time.


By whom, other than you? Why on earth use two inaccurate methods to replace a
simple and accurate method that also makes far less mess?

Charlie Self

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same
function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of
things." Sir Winston Churchill

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:24:11 -0000, "Jeff Gorman"
wrote:


"Richards" wrote

: You've made a very good point. If the blade projects beneath the plane,
: the piece of wood that you're working on will never be perfectly flat
: because the reference surface is not the same as the cutting edge.

Also, as I mentioned before in this same thread, there are Japanese
planes. They are designed just this way, the front of the sole,
forwards of the blade, is a bit higher than the back. THe back is at
the same level as the blade.

Or are we only talkin' about American planes here? Sorry, if so :-/

James

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:17:14 -0500, Trent©
wrote:


You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.


Thank you.

But its not that difficult. Its done all the time.


Have a nice week...


I don't have facts, and these don't always count in this kind of
argument anyway.

BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.

James

I'm sure the 'real' woodworkers that frequent the wreck could no doubt
create an invisible glue line using a dull adz.

dave

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:24:04 -0500, Trent©
wrote:


On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:58:07 -0500, brocpuffs
wrote:


On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:39 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:


that's PRECISELY why I can't see how a plane can make anything truly
FLAT. A jointer wouldn't if it was set up like a plane. So what are we
missing? Or is the emperor buck naked again? g

dave

You cats have never used a jointer plane properly, obviously.

Sure, any plane will hit the high spots first. It will continue to
take down the high spots till they are at the same level as the lowest
low spot, after which you have a clean, straight edge.

Done it lots of times, not dreaming!

If they didn't do this well, as someone said, the great joinery in
pre-electricity days wouldn;t have been possible.

They didn't have rasps and sandpaper back then?


You can edge join planks using rasps and sandpaper, and come out with
an invisible glue line? My hat is off to you.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:21:18 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:
I'm sure the 'real' woodworkers that frequent the wreck could no doubt
create an invisible glue line using a dull adz.


Adze?? We don't need no newfangled thangers with th'blade awn awl
Crossway.

Woi a REEL woodworker dun uzes a piece of flint chipped with an ol'
hunka Antler, er a stone axe iffin 'e MUST. :-)

Got an uncle who is an amataur traditional flintknapper: Uses only
stone, wood, and antler tools to make flint knives and things.

Impressivly sharp if a bit rough for a smoother.

Hey, I started at "ground zero" last year in this WW thing, so I MUST be
learning something, despite your pessimistic prognostication.

I characterized your style as "flowery"; not you. g

I do pay attention when the message is about woodworking. I've little
to no patience with extricating a tidbit of info from a sea of
irrelevant muck. (this is in general -- I'm not saying what you wrote
here is muck, at all.)

dave

Patrick Olguin wrote:

Bay Area Dave wrote in message .com...

So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna
be judged by the company you keep.


I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge
of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your
flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your
prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of
knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows
me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to
slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.


Hmmmmmmmmm. So tough love is not your bag. Sucks for you, because in
your "failing to learn," anything new, you obviously skipped a
fundamental of planing, which was mentioned in that six-year old post,
and still holds true today. To wit - that one should maintain
downward pressure on the knob (toe) of the plane at the beginning of
the stroke, and then make sure to switch that pressure to the tote
(heel) near the end. This will prevent crowning of the edge.

It's a pity the mental equivalent of walking and chewing gum prevents
you from absorbing new knowledge, but I'm sure it won't ruin your day.
Enjoy your new plane when it arrives. Try not to use it on melamine.

O'Deen

Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't
mind.

On 13 Nov 2003 22:55:43 -0800, (Patrick Olguin)
wrote:

Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't
mind.

Ya know, I gotta start using these Walt Disney references in my stuff
sose asta give it da proper gravitas and sech.


Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

"Eric Lund" wrote:


"Jeff Gorman" wrote in message

It can be shown theoretically, and many know from experience, that all
hand
planes can plane a concave edge. The radius of the curve (assuming it to
be
circular, which it might not be) is proportional to the square of the
length
of the plane divided by the set.

So a 22" jointer set for a .001 shaving (a very skilled user) would have a
radius of 484,000 inches!!! That's gotta be pretty close to flat.
He might have meant "equal to", in which case you are right, but he
said "proportional to".


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

The plane removes all waves in the wood with wavelengths shorter than the
length of the plane. If you plane with a 24 inch jointer plane you will
only be left with waves longer than 24 inches. So it works if it is flat to
within accepted tolerances.

Marc,

That sounds simple enough even a lout such as yours truly can understand.

The downside to this knowledge is that one paltry plane isn't gonna
"cut" it. Lord help me if they ever cancel my Visa card...


dave

Marc wrote:

The plane removes all waves in the wood with wavelengths shorter than the
length of the plane. If you plane with a 24 inch jointer plane you will
only be left with waves longer than 24 inches. So it works if it is flat to
within accepted tolerances.

Trent© wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:05:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

I was thinking about the difference between a jointer (powered) and a
plane. A jointer has the outfeed table level with the blade so that as
the work passes over the blade and onto the outfeed table, if the
operator uses good technique to keep the board flat on the outfeed
table, the board pretty much has to come out FLAT.

Yes...flat. Not SQUARE, mind you...but flat.
Why not? Are you assuming use of a jointer without a fence, or with a
fence not square to the tables?

What do you mean by 'straight'? Do you mean flat? Sure you can. The
front and rear are on the same plane...its the cutting blade that
projects below that plane...that does the cutting.

You start by running the front of the plane...the blade finally
contacts the work and starts cutting...the rear of the plane follows.

When you finally get done, the surface will be flat...but NOT
necessarily square.
See Gorman's post. It will be VERY slightly concave.

The key to getting the proper result is the WASTE...along with the
eyeballing. If it looks good...and then you run it thru one more time
and you get waste from the front to the back...it's flat. This is
true with any tool you use.

But maybe ONLY flat. That doesn't guarantee that there isn't a bevel
in it. That doesn't guarantee that it's square.
Again, assuming your fence is not square.

That's why I like my router table. My bit is square to the table.
When I run it thru, its automatically square...and also flat when I
get done.
And my jointer's cutter is square to the fence -- same result.

This would be extremely difficult to do with a plane on
very thin stock...1/4" and less, let's say.
Easy. Shooting board.

It'd be hard to plane
that...free standing... without tilting the plane to one side.
Very true.


And, don't forget...a plane is but one way to get the job done.
There's a lot of other tools...or combination of tools...that can do
the same job as the plane.
Yes, and some jobs better and some not as well.


I've said it before...got flamed...but I'll say it again...

A plane's primary job...except for specialized planes...is simply to
remove huge areas of waste quickly...back when no other tools did the
job as easily. Even then, there were other tools that could do the
same job.
Interesting. I wonder why we see other than scrub planes on the old
tool market. I guess the rest were just used for decoration...

What you're attempting to do is not the job of a plane. If yer tryin'
to take off thousandths, you should consider sandpaper.
Unless you prefer the surface left by a plane.


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

"Rick" wrote in message
.com...

And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
oxidizer, nozzle and a match?

If ya use the right oxidizer and fuel, ya don't need a steenking match -
just a patented butterfly valve and a memo to get the hell outta the way.
Unfortunately, rocket science has been "ruined," by the introduction of
oodles of software, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity, uncertainty,
fear and loathing, and statements like, "It isn't wrong - we just haven't
made up our minds yet." Not unlike rec.woodworking on the odd day.

O'Deen

OBWW - screw it. I'm gonna go home early and do some obww on my own time.

"Patrick Olguin" wrote in message
...
|
| "Rick" wrote in message
| .com...
|
| And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
| oxidizer, nozzle and a match?
|
| If ya use the right oxidizer and fuel, ya don't need a steenking
| match

If you use the right fuel you don't even need an oxidizer, just a good
catalyst.

In any case it's like saying woodworking is just a hunk of wood and a sharp
metal edge. The devil in both woodworking and rocketry is in the
details--many of which will kill you if not adequately respected.

--Jay

Dave,

I will often take a plane to clean up the edge after I've run a board
through on my jointer (PM 60). When the knives on my jointer are
fresh and recently set, the surface left by the jointer is very, very
good and runing a hand plane over the surface does little to improve
things. However, as the knives wear a bit, maybe develop a nick or
two, develop a slight crown or hollow (were talking maybe .002"), or
if I run a board over the jointer too fast, using a hand plane will
improve things a bunch. So now I use a plane to clean up edge joints
all the time. Do you need a long plane (i.e. #6, #7, #8) to do this?
No, because the edge is square to a face and straight. The plane,
finely tuned, is just there to take off a whisper thin shaving to
clean up slight imperfections in the surface. Now, sometimes the
edge, generally due to a technique screw up on my part, needs a little
more work. Then I make sure I pull out a jointer. What plane do I
usually use? I have two #7's (a new Clifton and an Type 11
Stanley/Bailey) in my arsenal and I have the Type 11 tuned to take a
very thin shaving (IIRC .0015") and I leave a 386 jointer fence
attached to it always. So, when I clean up a jointed edge before a
glue up, or to fix a bonehead error, I just reach for my Bailey #7
w/386 fence and pass it down the edge. That way I'm consistent and the
edge always comes out great. But in reality, if the edge is straight
and square then any finely set plane will work for cleaning up slight
machine marks (generally scallops)

Steve,

Now THAT'S a finely detailed description of when and with what to clean
up a board. Thanks for the succinctly written explanation of what you
use, and the reasons for bothering to plane a jointed surface. You have
explained this for me in practical terms that I relate to.

To summarize: well tuned, sharp bladed jointer, run at optimum pace,
provides a perfect edge ready for glue-up. Dull blades, less than
stellar technique requires a bit of touch-up.

How am I doing?

dave

Steve Wilson wrote:

Dave,

I will often take a plane to clean up the edge after I've run a board
through on my jointer (PM 60). When the knives on my jointer are
fresh and recently set, the surface left by the jointer is very, very
good and runing a hand plane over the surface does little to improve
things. However, as the knives wear a bit, maybe develop a nick or
two, develop a slight crown or hollow (were talking maybe .002"), or
if I run a board over the jointer too fast, using a hand plane will
improve things a bunch. So now I use a plane to clean up edge joints
all the time. Do you need a long plane (i.e. #6, #7, #8) to do this?
No, because the edge is square to a face and straight. The plane,
finely tuned, is just there to take off a whisper thin shaving to
clean up slight imperfections in the surface. Now, sometimes the
edge, generally due to a technique screw up on my part, needs a little
more work. Then I make sure I pull out a jointer. What plane do I
usually use? I have two #7's (a new Clifton and an Type 11
Stanley/Bailey) in my arsenal and I have the Type 11 tuned to take a
very thin shaving (IIRC .0015") and I leave a 386 jointer fence
attached to it always. So, when I clean up a jointed edge before a
glue up, or to fix a bonehead error, I just reach for my Bailey #7
w/386 fence and pass it down the edge. That way I'm consistent and the
edge always comes out great. But in reality, if the edge is straight
and square then any finely set plane will work for cleaning up slight
machine marks (generally scallops)

"Patrick Olguin" wrote:


"Rick" wrote in message

And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel,
oxidizer, nozzle and a match?

Unfortunately, rocket science has been "ruined," by the introduction of
oodles of software, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity, uncertainty,
fear and loathing, and statements like, "It isn't wrong - we just haven't
made up our minds yet." Not unlike rec.woodworking on the odd day.

And besides, rocket science is all going to be shipped offshore to
China in the next couple of years.

ObWW: Maybe they'll put a space facility right next to one of the
factories that makes woodworking stuff. ;-)

Ken Muldrew

(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

I am convinced.........
You have to be Frazer Crane

ooop I forgot Dr.

Steve Wilson wrote:

snipped

I have two #7's (a new Clifton and an Type 11
Stanley/Bailey) in my arsenal and I have the Type 11 tuned to take a
very thin shaving (IIRC .0015") and I leave a 386 jointer fence
attached to it always. So, when I clean up a jointed edge before a
glue up, or to fix a bonehead error, I just reach for my Bailey #7
w/386 fence and pass it down the edge. That way I'm consistent and the
edge always comes out great.

There you go Dave, a Stanley #7 (in a "Sweetheart" box no less)

http://www.patented-antiques.com/Bac...nter_boxed.htm

and a #386 jointer fence

http://www.patented-antiques.com/Bac...s/386fence.htm

You better hurry, they will probably be sold by tomorrow.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.

I know for a fact its at least 60 years old! lol


Have a nice week...

I'm not gonna keep this thread going so I will not answer, except to
say we were talking about a lot older than 60 years. AFAIK-

ah heck, let's talk about female carpenters or somethin'..

James

I'd rather think about Victoria Secrets models than a female carpenter!!
What kind of image do YOU conjure up when thinking of a female
carpenter??

dave

brocpuffs wrote:

BUT, how long have rasps and sandpaper been with us? I remember,
sandpaper is *relatively* modern. I bet Jeff G. can answer that one.

I know for a fact its at least 60 years old! lol


Have a nice week...


I'm not gonna keep this thread going so I will not answer, except to
say we were talking about a lot older than 60 years. AFAIK-

ah heck, let's talk about female carpenters or somethin'..

James

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:54:30 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

I'd rather think about Victoria Secrets models than a female carpenter!!
What kind of image do YOU conjure up when thinking of a female
carpenter??

dave


ive worked with a couple that could be VS models! skeez

why would they wield a hammer when they could be on the catwalk?? g

dave

wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:54:30 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:


I'd rather think about Victoria Secrets models than a female carpenter!!
What kind of image do YOU conjure up when thinking of a female
carpenter??

dave



ive worked with a couple that could be VS models! skeez

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:13:49 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

why would they wield a hammer when they could be on the catwalk?? g

dave


makes ya wonder huh? eye candy makes the day go better though!!!
skeez

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:13:49 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote:

why would they wield a hammer when they could be on the catwalk?? g

dave

Too many jokes about dead cat pushsticks, I betcha!

James

Sandpaper at one time was shark skin, several hundred years ago.

--
There is only one period and no underscores in the real email address.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Scott Cramer wrote in message 07.53...
On 13 Nov 2003, Wood Butcher spake unto rec.woodworking:

I don't think so. But it was a nice try.
Automobile is auto-mobile or self moving/motion. Just like autograph is
your self written mark and autobiography is your self written story.
Back when the term was initiated all self moving vehicles, including the
electrics and steamers, were called automobiles.

Art

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message

'Automobile' is actually a corruption of 'Ottomobile.'

And I suppose the bra was NOT invented by a guy named Titzling? Or
the toilet by Thomas Crapper?

No fair! I put a smiley in my post.

--

FF

The Guy wrote in message .. .


It sounds like you might benefit from a little light reading about the
function and use of hangplanes.
^^^^^^^^^^^

Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
that guys hang underneath of?

--

FF

"Don't forget, at least one misspelling is mandatory in
any spelling flame."

there are a few guys around here with holes in their SOULS...



Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
snip
^^^^^^^^^^^

Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
that guys hang underneath of?
snip

and you are? ...

Obviously Demented.

dave

O D wrote:

I am convinced.........
You have to be Frazer Crane

ooop I forgot Dr.

And one that BADly needs some soles in his hole.

Art

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
. com...
there are a few guys around here with holes in their SOULS...



Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
snip
^^^^^^^^^^^

Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
that guys hang underneath of?
snip

there is a lot of anal talk around here. why are there so many
"preverts"? NO, that is NOT a typo; anyone care to guess the origin of
that usage? Non baby-boomers need not apply...

dave

Wood Butcher wrote:

And one that BADly needs some soles in his hole.

Art

"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
. com...

there are a few guys around here with holes in their SOULS...



Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
snip

^^^^^^^^^^^

Are those the woodworking planes that have holes drilled in their
souls so they can be hung on a nail? Or are they those gliders
that guys hang underneath of?

snip