I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the fence,
particularly for narrower boards.

Yesterday, after multiple setup evaluations and trying different
techniques, I decided to take a different approach: using the jointer to
get the edges close to flat and ready for jointing, then use a hand-plane
to joint the two boards (folded in book-matched configuration) together.
Wow! Light-tight joints! I'm a happy camper. Doesn't add that much work
and results in a much better end product. I did determine that you can't
get too aggressive, or the ends can wind up with gaps or the boards get
re-shaped to the point of requiring another trip across the jointer to get
back onto an approximation to flat.

I used my LN #4 for this. Several years ago, I got a #5 1/2 Stanley from
Pat Leach; I need to sharpen the #5 1/2 blade and try it, I suspect the
longer sole will provide a better reference.

Downside to this is that now I've got to start thinking about getting a
jointer plane. Even if I do figure out what is going wrong on the jointer,
I believe that the ability to match the two boards to fine-tune the joint
will continue to provide superior joints for glue-up.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong,
whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion
is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the fence,
particularly for narrower boards.

Yesterday, after multiple setup evaluations and trying different
techniques, I decided to take a different approach: using the jointer to
get the edges close to flat and ready for jointing, then use a hand-plane
to joint the two boards (folded in book-matched configuration) together.
Wow! Light-tight joints!
(snip)


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

You didn't fully describe the type of gap, but based on the results of the
hand-plane solution I would guess that the fence is slightly off square.
When you book match the boards for hand planing, the orientation will
accomodate any slop in the squareness of the edge. You can do the same when
you run the boards through the jointer, and it will also accomodate any slop
in the fence squareness.

-MJ

Another very simple solution that has worked well for me for years is to
simply build a sled with a couple of clamps to cut the glue line on the TS.


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong,
whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion
is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the fence,
particularly for narrower boards.

Yesterday, after multiple setup evaluations and trying different
techniques, I decided to take a different approach: using the jointer to
get the edges close to flat and ready for jointing, then use a hand-plane
to joint the two boards (folded in book-matched configuration) together.
Wow! Light-tight joints! I'm a happy camper. Doesn't add that much work
and results in a much better end product. I did determine that you can't
get too aggressive, or the ends can wind up with gaps or the boards get
re-shaped to the point of requiring another trip across the jointer to get
back onto an approximation to flat.

I used my LN #4 for this. Several years ago, I got a #5 1/2 Stanley from
Pat Leach; I need to sharpen the #5 1/2 blade and try it, I suspect the
longer sole will provide a better reference.

Downside to this is that now I've got to start thinking about getting a
jointer plane. Even if I do figure out what is going wrong on the
jointer,
I believe that the ability to match the two boards to fine-tune the joint
will continue to provide superior joints for glue-up.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong,
whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion
is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the fence,
particularly for narrower boards.

It's tough to diagnose long distance. If you haven't done so in your tuning,
a little off parallel between in- and outfeed tables can carve a hollow or
snipe into your board. Getting the outfeed a little low from the knives will
do it too. Technique might have some influence, but less so for edges than
the face. I hold pressure on the infeed side until it's well started and
beginning to cut, and then transfer most of the focus to the outfeed side.

I prefer to finish the edge on the tablesaw after cleaning up enough for a
good bearing surface. The Woodworker II leaves a surface cleaner than the
jointer (which could this moment benefit from a light honing.)

Mark Johnson wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

.... snip
Yesterday, after multiple setup evaluations and trying different
techniques, I decided to take a different approach: using the jointer to
get the edges close to flat and ready for jointing, then use a hand-plane
to joint the two boards (folded in book-matched configuration) together.
Wow! Light-tight joints!
(snip)


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

You didn't fully describe the type of gap, but based on the results of the
hand-plane solution I would guess that the fence is slightly off square.
When you book match the boards for hand planing, the orientation will
accomodate any slop in the squareness of the edge. You can do the same
when you run the boards through the jointer, and it will also accomodate
any slop in the fence squareness.

-MJ

The fence itself is square (per a machinist square), however, I think it
may be more an issue with being able to keep the stock square to the fence.
I have tried running two boards through together in the past, the problem
then becomes tear-out because the grain direction is not always the same
for the two boards. I can take a fine enough pass with the handplane such
that tearout doesn't become an issue.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:09:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Downside to this is that now I've got to start thinking about getting a
jointer plane. Even if I do figure out what is going wrong on the jointer,
I believe that the ability to match the two boards to fine-tune the joint
will continue to provide superior joints for glue-up.

My jointer works fine, but it's still somehow more satisfying to joint the
edges with a hand plane. If you can find one, get an old Stanley #8. A
corrugated sole is nice, but not a requirement.

I repeat, an OLD Stanley :-).

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:09:39 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Downside to this is that now I've got to start thinking about getting a
jointer plane. Even if I do figure out what is going wrong on the
jointer, I believe that the ability to match the two boards to fine-tune
the joint will continue to provide superior joints for glue-up.

My jointer works fine, but it's still somehow more satisfying to joint the
edges with a hand plane.

Something about seeing those thin wispy curls coming out the plane and
then getting that perfect fit just makes everything right with the world,
doesn't it?


If you can find one, get an old Stanley #8. A
corrugated sole is nice, but not a requirement.

I repeat, an OLD Stanley :-).

Hmmm, hafta start looking up Mr. Leach again.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong,
whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion
is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the fence,
particularly for narrower boards.

Before you totally give up on your jointer, and after you've already edge
jointed your boards (or if you have some trouble with the hand plane method)
try the the following on the jointer:

Do a layout for your glue-up with all the boards face up, and in the
correct/final order.

Starting from the top, and alternating with chalk/pencil, a "U" (up) on one
side, and a "D" (down) on the opposite side, of _each_ glue joint in the
layout.

Then do a final pass over the jointer, with the above marked edge against
the fence, AND in the appropriate up or down orientation.

The resulting adjacent edges of each joint will now equal 90 degrees, even
if your jointer fence is not precisely set to 90 degrees.

The method takes out any error of the fence being square to the table (and
technique for the most part), takes elegant advantage of the principle of
"complementary angles" to obtain 90 degree joints for _adjacent boards_ in a
glue-up.

Have used this "jointer" method for panel glue-ups, without fail, for years
.... your mileage shouldn't vary.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Mark & Juanita wrote:
I did determine that you can't
get too aggressive, or the ends can wind up with gaps or the boards get
re-shaped to the point of requiring another trip across the jointer to get
back onto an approximation to flat.

I used my LN #4 for this. Several years ago, I got a #5 1/2 Stanley from
Pat Leach; I need to sharpen the #5 1/2 blade and try it, I suspect the
longer sole will provide a better reference.

The longer blade is definately nicer. The #5 1/2 will be better, but a
#7 or #8 is better still.

While I could usually glue up right off the jointer, I can tell that
there are faint machine marks on the edge. A couple shavings from the
edge, and it's as close to perfect as I'm likely to see. If you use a
stop rather than dogs, it takes hardly any time at all.

Chris

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Yesterday, after multiple setup evaluations and trying different
techniques, I decided to take a different approach: using the jointer to
get the edges close to flat and ready for jointing, then use a hand-plane
to joint the two boards (folded in book-matched configuration) together.
Wow! Light-tight joints!

Mark Johnson wrote:
You didn't fully describe the type of gap, but based on the results of the
hand-plane solution I would guess that the fence is slightly off square.
When you book match the boards for hand planing, the orientation will
accomodate any slop in the squareness of the edge. You can do the same
when you run the boards through the jointer, and it will also accomodate
any slop in the fence squareness.

Specifically, I mark each side of the joint 1,2,3,4 and so on at each
joint, then, joint with the odd numbers in (against the fence) and even
numbers out (away from the fence) Doing this there is no need for the
fence to be a perfect 90°, in fact, slightly off will give more gluing
surface but will ALWAYS result in a perfect 90° joint.

The fence itself is square (per a machinist square), however, I think it
may be more an issue with being able to keep the stock square to the fence.

This would be a different issue entirely. If the face against the fence
is wobbling, I guess you get a wobbly cut?

I have tried running two boards through together in the past,

Not sure how that would help on a jointer, but you still must keep the
boards against the fence for the whole trip.

the problem then becomes tear-out because the grain direction is not always the same
for the two boards. I can take a fine enough pass with the handplane such
that tearout doesn't become an issue.

Hand planes are sweet but it would seem to me it would be more difficult
to keep the plane flat on narrow board edge than a wide board face flat
against the fence of a jointer?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Downside to this is that now I've got to start thinking about getting a
jointer plane.

If you go looking for a #7 (jointer), the offerings from either
Veritas or Lie-Nielsen will be great out of the box. If you can't
afford that, then as others have mentioned, go for a vintage Stanely.
Check for cracks, especially around the mouth. Also check the sole
with a straight edge down the length, with the blade retracted.
You probably won't find one that's completely flat, but do avoid
the ones that have a lot of day light showing--espeically if the
daylight is showing through around the mouth.

Even if I do figure out what is going wrong on the jointer, I believe
that the ability to match the two boards to fine-tune the joint will
continue to provide superior joints for glue-up.

I have a similar situation with the stock I've run over a Delta 6"
jointer. Mostly what comes off the Delta is pretty good--but I can
make it better by running my #7 over the edges.

Jack Stein wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Yesterday, after multiple setup evaluations and trying different
techniques, I decided to take a different approach: using the jointer
to get the edges close to flat and ready for jointing, then use a
hand-plane to joint the two boards (folded in book-matched
configuration) together.
Wow! Light-tight joints!

Mark Johnson wrote:
You didn't fully describe the type of gap, but based on the results of
the
hand-plane solution I would guess that the fence is slightly off
square. When you book match the boards for hand planing, the orientation
will
accomodate any slop in the squareness of the edge. You can do the same
when you run the boards through the jointer, and it will also accomodate
any slop in the fence squareness.

Specifically, I mark each side of the joint 1,2,3,4 and so on at each
joint, then, joint with the odd numbers in (against the fence) and even
numbers out (away from the fence) Doing this there is no need for the
fence to be a perfect 90°, in fact, slightly off will give more gluing
surface but will ALWAYS result in a perfect 90° joint.


Thanks, that's a great way to make sure the angles are complementary.
I'll try that.

....snip

Hand planes are sweet but it would seem to me it would be more difficult
to keep the plane flat on narrow board edge than a wide board face flat
against the fence of a jointer?


With the two boards side by side, keeping the plane flat was that tough.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote

I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints
that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong,
whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion
is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the
fence, particularly for narrower boards.

Before you totally give up on your jointer, and after you've already edge
jointed your boards (or if you have some trouble with the hand plane
method) try the the following on the jointer:

Do a layout for your glue-up with all the boards face up, and in the
correct/final order.

Starting from the top, and alternating with chalk/pencil, a "U" (up) on
one side, and a "D" (down) on the opposite side, of _each_ glue joint in
the layout.

Then do a final pass over the jointer, with the above marked edge against
the fence, AND in the appropriate up or down orientation.

The resulting adjacent edges of each joint will now equal 90 degrees, even
if your jointer fence is not precisely set to 90 degrees.

The method takes out any error of the fence being square to the table (and
technique for the most part), takes elegant advantage of the principle of
"complementary angles" to obtain 90 degree joints for _adjacent boards_ in
a glue-up.

Have used this "jointer" method for panel glue-ups, without fail, for
years ... your mileage shouldn't vary.


Thanks, between Jack Stein's and your recommendations, I have another shot
at getting this right.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote

I've been struggling lately trying to get those "light-tight" joints
that
are essential to good glue-ups. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong,
whether
it is setup, or technique, but I'm getting 7 to 9 mil gaps on my joints
from the jointer. It's a good jointer, a pre-international General, so I
can't blame the tool, I just seem to have lost the recipe. My suspicion
is
that it is technique in maintaining good 90 degree contact with the
fence, particularly for narrower boards.

Before you totally give up on your jointer, and after you've already edge
jointed your boards (or if you have some trouble with the hand plane
method) try the the following on the jointer:

Do a layout for your glue-up with all the boards face up, and in the
correct/final order.

.... snip of method

The method takes out any error of the fence being square to the table (and
technique for the most part), takes elegant advantage of the principle of
"complementary angles" to obtain 90 degree joints for _adjacent boards_ in
a glue-up.

Have used this "jointer" method for panel glue-ups, without fail, for
years ... your mileage shouldn't vary.


One question for you and Jack: Using the technique ya'll describe, it is
nearly certain that you are running some of those boards against the grain,
particularly if you have done grain matching for the glue-up. How do you
deal with preventing tear-out?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

nearly certain that you are running some of those boards against the
grain,
particularly if you have done grain matching for the glue-up. How do you
deal with preventing tear-out?

I have rarely had any trouble with tear-out when _edge jointing_ even when
using highly figured woods. Highly figured woods generally require very
sharp blades, along with paying attention to grain direction. If the latter
is not an option, as with this method, besides insuring that you have sharp
jointer blades, try a spray bottle with water and spritz the areas where the
tear-out is problematic just prior to jointing.

In the few cases that doesn't work, I fire up the table saw, with a Freud
Glue Line Rip installed, and forego using the jointer altogether.

BTW, you can use the same alternating edge technique to insure complementary
angles on the table saw.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I understand that a shortcut to jointing an edge is bookmatching two
boards together. However, I think it is important to understand, and
accept, that this does not make a board square. Does it matter when
trying to get a nice glue line? I would say yes - a tight, square,
sprung joint is of much better quality than a bookmatched one. I'm
sure we could argue back and forth about bookmatching joints all day.
But that is not my point...

The ability to accurately square a board is crucial to doing good work
- _especially_ for beginners. If you don't start with a square board,
how do you lay out accurate joints - much less cut them? Having an
accurate and square face side and face edge goes way, WAY beyond
gluing up a blank. Every operation in woodworking should incorporate
these issues. Additionally, the only method I know of for accurate
preparation of stock is a handplane with a cambered blade.

Mark and\or Juanita, I strongly encourage you to keep trying with a
handplane. You don't mention the length of board, but the 5 1/2 might
be ok - and yes, a 7/8 even better. Camber the blade, shoot for
perfectly square, perhaps even a sprung joint. Creating the perfect
glue up, with a little practice, is much easier than you might think!
I'd recommend picking up the David Charlesworth DVD #2 about handplane
techniques to understand what "flat and square" really mean (or rent
from SmartFlix). And remember, flat and square apply to all of
woodworking - not just jointing an edge.

www.sawmillcreek.org and www.woodnet.net\forums have thriving handtool
forums that would gladly help you along.

Respectfully,
- jbd in Denver

"Freddie" wrote

I understand that a shortcut to jointing an edge is bookmatching two
boards together.
However, I think it is important to understand, and
accept, that this does not make a board square.

Actually, the object of the OP's dilemma was NOT to "make a board square",
it was to make the glue joints in a panel glue-up "square".

Something even Neanders learn to do with a plane using a similar technique
to the one described.

Does it matter when
trying to get a nice glue line? I would say yes - a tight, square,
sprung joint is of much better quality than a bookmatched one. I'm
sure we could argue back and forth about bookmatching joints all day.
But that is not my point...

Methinks you've missed the "point" entirely. The described method basically
guarantees a SQUARE _glue joint_ on a jointer.

Failure to do so, on his jointer, was the OP's opening statement ... but
don't take my word for it, go back and verify that for yourself.

The ability to accurately square a board is crucial to doing good work
- _especially_ for beginners.

He may be more Normite than Neander, but I doubt you'll find that Mark is a
"beginner" in woodworking.

If you don't start with a square board,
how do you lay out accurate joints - much less cut them?

See first above ...

snip

Additionally, the only method I know of for accurate
preparation of stock is a handplane with a cambered blade.

My sympathies indeed ... maybe you'll pay attention and learn something, eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Freddie wrote:
Additionally, the only method I know of for accurate
preparation of stock is a handplane with a cambered blade.

While I agreed with much of what you said, the above statement is taking
things too far. A handplane with straight blade can prepare stock
accurately (although with more likelihood of plane tracks). A a router
with straightedge can edge-joint, as can a tablesaw with sled. A planer
with a sled can face-joint. Heck, a wide-belt sander does a dandy job
of flattening large surfaces.

There are many ways to get where you're going....

Chris

On Oct 21, 12:39*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
My sympathies indeed ... maybe you'll pay attention and learn something, eh?

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman –

Firstly, I hope I did not offend given my comments. My response was
not a pointed comment against what you said, and hope it wasn’t taken
so. Over the years, I appreciate the guidance you’ve given me
specifically – (a cabinet project many years ago included). Nor was my
point that Normites are inferior in any way. I, in fact, own a
tablesaw, jointer, planer, DowelMax, etc, etc… (Even a Fezzztool tape
measure!)

No, I did not miss the point. Yes, I understand Mark (who I also know
is not a beginner, and hope my comment was not taken to so imply - and
if so, my apologies) is wanting to glue a flat panel. I even agreed
that bookmatching a joint is a way to get a good glue line – and yes,
several respected hand tool experts (Hack included) describe this
method. I fully agree that using a handplane to perfect a joint by
bookmatching boards is an acceptable and decent way to create a blank.
That point I again concede. But I’ll say again, that was not MY
point…

My hopes is that Mark, who is exploring hand tools methods to perfect
a glue joint, take that interest a bit further. Understand that
bookmatching glue joints is a shortcut – but is also a doorway to an
even better method. That method being the ability to true and square
stock with a hand plane.

And, again, not only will his glue ups improve, having flat, true,
square components are a further benefit – in all woodworking
operations.

And yes, I’m happy to pay attention, and try and learn something. It’s
why I’m here. I’ve only been working wood for 10 years, and don’t
claim to know it all. I can only relate what I’ve experienced. And in
my 10 years experience, my Unisaw with a Forrest blade, and Powermatic
jointer – both tuned frequently w/ TS-Aligner – only go so far. Hand
planes perfect the job.

And would, again, encourage Mark to try it… Certainly Swingman, you
can’t begrudge me that can you?

Again with respect,
- jbd in Denver

"Swingman" wrote in message
Actually, the object of the OP's dilemma was NOT to "make a board square",
it was to make the glue joints in a panel glue-up "square".

And then, a relatively simple and easier procedure to square up the panel
after gluing up.

On Oct 21, 1:15*pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
Freddie wrote:
Additionally, the only method I know of for accurate
preparation of stock is a handplane with a cambered blade.

While I agreed with much of what you said, the above statement is taking
things too far. *A handplane with straight blade can prepare stock
accurately (although with more likelihood of plane tracks). *A a router
with straightedge can edge-joint, as can a tablesaw with sled. *A planer
with a sled can face-joint. *Heck, a wide-belt sander does a dandy job
of flattening large surfaces.

There are many ways to get where you're going....

Chris

Chris,

I understand your view points, but can't agree with them. In fact, my
first powertool I bought specifically for woodworking was a
Jointability (or something like that). A router based 'jointing'
system. Yes, it worked - ok. Went to "jointing" on the Unisaw when I
got it - it was even better. Oddly enough, still was not happy, bought
the Powermatic jointer - and yes, better still. But after learning how
to perfect a joint by hand - with a cambered blade - I'll never go
back to anything else. Even with your points above, you don't address
square. I didn't realize how important accurate stock preparation was
(flat, true, AND square) till I started concentrating on it. Accurate
layout is crucial to accurate joints. Square is a big deal; my results
were dramatic.

I'm not telling Mark this way or that. The only reason I'm expending
this effort is that I've been there with him (as outlined above). I've
tried all these things - and have been MOST satisfied with handplanes.
He's having a trouble with a glue up because he can't get a square
component off the jointer. Sure you guys are helping him with a glue
up - but what of his other components? Does square only matter with
panels? Poo! How well does his M&T joinery work out? Slap some
Dominoes in an run it through the wide belt sander? Eh... yes, I
suppose that would work.

By the way, I didn't make this up. I learned it. Well known craftsman
still do this...

- jbd

"Freddie" wrote

No, I did not miss the point. Yes, I understand Mark (who I also know
is not a beginner, and hope my comment was not taken to so imply - and
if so, my apologies) is wanting to glue a flat panel. I even agreed
that bookmatching a joint is a way to get a good glue line – and yes,
several respected hand tool experts (Hack included) describe this
method. I fully agree that using a handplane to perfect a joint by
bookmatching boards is an acceptable and decent way to create a blank.
That point I again concede. But I’ll say again, that was not MY
point…

No problem ... my point is that it has got do Ms. Whittaker, my 8th grade
Geometry teacher, proud indeed when a former student of that dear old lady
still uses something in the everyday workshop world that she taught, some
50+ years later:

The concept of the "complementary angle".

If you learn it, you might as well use it and pass it on.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

The concept of the "complementary angle".

If you learn it, you might as well use it and pass it on.

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Understood, and fully agreed.

Zz

On Oct 21, 4:22 pm, Freddie wrote:
The concept of the "complementary angle".

If you learn it, you might as well use it and pass it on.

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Understood, and fully agreed.

Zz


i just have to say it..... I think the term is supplementary

shelly

wrote

i just have to say it..... I think the term is supplementary

I certainly agree ... from the perspective of the desired reference/flatness
of 0/180 degrees for the finished panel.

However, with most woodworking tools, like table saws and jointers, the
reference angle from which angle measurements are usually made is 90
degrees, not 0 degrees.

In this case, a jointer fence that was supposedly perpendicular (90 degrees)
to the jointer table.

The angle cut in an opposing piece, and canceling out any deviation from the
desired 90 degree cut using the jointer fence as a reference, can correctly
be termed "complementary".

Caution ... this concept can cause threads of enormous length and vitriol!


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Oct 22, 9:59 am, "Swingman" wrote:
wrote

i just have to say it..... I think the term is supplementary

I certainly agree ... from the perspective of the desired reference/flatness
of 0/180 degrees for the finished panel.

However, with most woodworking tools, like table saws and jointers, the
reference angle from which angle measurements are usually made is 90
degrees, not 0 degrees.

In this case, a jointer fence that was supposedly perpendicular (90 degrees)
to the jointer table.

The angle cut in an opposing piece, and canceling out any deviation from the
desired 90 degree cut using the jointer fence as a reference, can correctly
be termed "complementary".

Caution ... this concept can cause threads of enormous length and vitriol!

good advice.... So n the spirit of good clean fun:

your argument is true, but in the cases where the boards are taped
together, and hand planed simultaneously, supplementary correctly
describes the way the boards face together - both when they are
planed, and when they are glued up.


shelly

Supplementary angles are two angles whose sum is 180°
Complementary angles are two angles whose sum is 90°

Therefore, the miter angles in a joint which forms a right angle when
joined are complementary angles. Those in a joint which forms a
straight line when joined are supplementary angles.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 9:59 am, "Swingman" wrote:
wrote

i just have to say it..... I think the term is supplementary

I certainly agree ... from the perspective of the desired
reference/flatness
of 0/180 degrees for the finished panel.

your argument is true, but in the cases where the boards are taped
together, and hand planed simultaneously, supplementary correctly
describes the way the boards face together - both when they are
planed, and when they are glued up.

Read my first sentence again ...



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Mark & Juanita wrote:

One question for you and Jack: Using the technique ya'll describe, it is
nearly certain that you are running some of those boards against the grain,
particularly if you have done grain matching for the glue-up. How do you
deal with preventing tear-out?

Pretty much the same way you do with a hand plane. Sharp blade, thin
cut. If that doesn't work then the table saw with the 40 or 60 tooth
usually works fine. Actually, for glue ups like this the table saw
works fine as long as there is no tear out. I've glued up pine off my
12 tooth already that was OK without jointing anything (for bench tops
and such) and that works fine. The rough surface probably aids the
strength of the joint. For something like solid cherry panels, like
your going to make, my jointer almost always works fine, even with
highly figured wood. I only worry about grain direction if I get tear
out, which normally I don't.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

One question for you and Jack: Using the technique ya'll describe, it
is
nearly certain that you are running some of those boards against the
grain,
particularly if you have done grain matching for the glue-up. How do you
deal with preventing tear-out?

Pretty much the same way you do with a hand plane. Sharp blade, thin
cut. If that doesn't work then the table saw with the 40 or 60 tooth
usually works fine. Actually, for glue ups like this the table saw
works fine as long as there is no tear out. I've glued up pine off my
12 tooth already that was OK without jointing anything (for bench tops
and such) and that works fine. The rough surface probably aids the
strength of the joint. For something like solid cherry panels, like
your going to make, my jointer almost always works fine, even with
highly figured wood. I only worry about grain direction if I get tear
out, which normally I don't.


Thanks to both you and Swingman for your comments. My experience goes
back to working with maple -- I had a terrible time with getting maple to
joint even going the right direction without tearout. I'm going to try the
methods you both recommended. I realize also that in the past several
years, I've started taking lighter passes as well, that is probably going
to solve the problems I encountered in my early years.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough