If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

.... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the
deviation in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the
tops of the stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or
would you somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Now the Sketchup question:

I drew the bottom and top rails first, including the arch. Then I drew
the stiles in place, butting up to the bottom rail properly, but with
excess length at the top. I opened a stile for editing, selected the
front face and tried to "intersect faces with model". Sketchup told me
there was no intersection. I think I've had this happen before. If two
surfaces are in the same plane, even if they obviously overlap, Sketchup
does not consider that "intersection".

As a workaround, I moved the top rail forward by half the thickness of
the "wood" and then did the "Intersect Faces" procedure on the front
face of the stile. This time it drew the line I was looking for on the
front face of the stile. I used the "pull" tool to "trim" the stile to
mate with the arch. Then I moved the top rail back to its intended
position.

Is this simply how Sketchup works? Or is there some other way to make
parts whose faces are in the same plane "mate"?

Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry tells
me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would deviate
from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the deviation
in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the tops of the
stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or would you
somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Now the Sketchup question:

I drew the bottom and top rails first, including the arch. Then I drew
the stiles in place, butting up to the bottom rail properly, but with
excess length at the top. I opened a stile for editing, selected the
front face and tried to "intersect faces with model". Sketchup told me
there was no intersection. I think I've had this happen before. If two
surfaces are in the same plane, even if they obviously overlap, Sketchup
does not consider that "intersection".

As a workaround, I moved the top rail forward by half the thickness of
the "wood" and then did the "Intersect Faces" procedure on the front face
of the stile. This time it drew the line I was looking for on the front
face of the stile. I used the "pull" tool to "trim" the stile to mate
with the arch. Then I moved the top rail back to its intended position.

Is this simply how Sketchup works? Or is there some other way to make
parts whose faces are in the same plane "mate"?

You might rethink how your rails and stiles intersect. Look at this.
Typically rails, outer rails fit between stiles. This does not address the
inner stiles but I think you cab rethink a bit and come up with a simpler
solution.

https://flic.kr/p/e5u1yW

Anyway if you stay with this design exactly, cut the top rail first. Cut
the stiles next and long. Clamp stiles precisely where you want them,
under the top rail. With a top bearing flush cut bit in your router use
the clamped top rail as the guide to cut a groove on the face of the
stile.
Once you have all stiles grooved, remove and cut off the excess, close to
the line you want to keep. Now use that edge again to guide the bit to
remove the remainder. Make several passes.

Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry tells
me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would deviate
from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the deviation
in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the tops of the
stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or would you
somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Now the Sketchup question:

I drew the bottom and top rails first, including the arch. Then I drew
the stiles in place, butting up to the bottom rail properly, but with
excess length at the top. I opened a stile for editing, selected the
front face and tried to "intersect faces with model". Sketchup told me
there was no intersection. I think I've had this happen before. If two
surfaces are in the same plane, even if they obviously overlap, Sketchup
does not consider that "intersection".

As a workaround, I moved the top rail forward by half the thickness of
the "wood" and then did the "Intersect Faces" procedure on the front face
of the stile. This time it drew the line I was looking for on the front
face of the stile. I used the "pull" tool to "trim" the stile to mate
with the arch. Then I moved the top rail back to its intended position.

Is this simply how Sketchup works? Or is there some other way to make
parts whose faces are in the same plane "mate"?

Now how to draw. Draw flat and everything. Do not make any of this as
component yet. Make a complete copy and move to the side. Erase every
thing in the first drawing that is not the rails. Go to the second
complete drawing and erase everything that are not stiles. The ark on the
stiles should remain. Now make everything into components and put the
pieces together.

Leon wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry tells
me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would deviate
from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the deviation
in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the tops of the
stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or would you
somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Now the Sketchup question:

I drew the bottom and top rails first, including the arch. Then I drew
the stiles in place, butting up to the bottom rail properly, but with
excess length at the top. I opened a stile for editing, selected the
front face and tried to "intersect faces with model". Sketchup told me
there was no intersection. I think I've had this happen before. If two
surfaces are in the same plane, even if they obviously overlap, Sketchup
does not consider that "intersection".

As a workaround, I moved the top rail forward by half the thickness of
the "wood" and then did the "Intersect Faces" procedure on the front face
of the stile. This time it drew the line I was looking for on the front
face of the stile. I used the "pull" tool to "trim" the stile to mate
with the arch. Then I moved the top rail back to its intended position.

Is this simply how Sketchup works? Or is there some other way to make
parts whose faces are in the same plane "mate"?

Now how to draw. Draw flat and everything. Do not make any of this as
component yet. Make a complete copy and move to the side. Erase every
thing in the first drawing that is not the rails. Go to the second
complete drawing and erase everything that are not stiles. The ark on the
stiles should remain. Now make everything into components and put the
pieces together.

Just a hint here, non component lines in a drawing do not move well, they
stick to other lines. BUT those lines copy perfectly..

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 4:15:11 PM UTC-5, Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount.

With a 36' (432") radius, and the chord is 2.5", the angle would be .331 degrees and the distance from the chord to the top of the arc is .00181".
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calsect.htm

Might as well cut the tops of the stiles straight across.

Sonny

On 7/27/2015 4:51 PM, Sonny wrote:
On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 4:15:11 PM UTC-5, Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount.

With a 36' (432") radius, and the chord is 2.5", the angle would be .331 degrees and the distance from the chord to the top of the arc is .00181".
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calsect.htm

Might as well cut the tops of the stiles straight across.

Sonny


While this will work but will leave a gap, small one, it will not be a
strong joint, touching in only two points. Additionally at precisely
what angle will you cut?

It is probably going to be just as easy to cut the matching ark on the
stiles using a flush trim router bit and using the ark on the rail as
the guide.

Something to also consider with a 36' radius I doubt he is going to get
a perfect ark unless he uses his router on the end of a 36' long string,
and then placement of the rail will be critical. ;~)

Better to print the pattern, glue to the rail, cut close to the drawing
ark, and then sand smooth to the line. Remove the paper pattern.
The ark will not be perfect but if you use the ark on the rail to guide
the flush cut bit it will be a perfect match.

Greg Guarino wrote in
:

If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like
this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of
the deviation in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut
the tops of the stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight,
or would you somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched
rail?

I'd probably dry fit it and see how tight the joint looked,
and then take a pass or two with a block plane to make the
stile fit if it needed it.

Now, if you wanted to get fancy, instead of tenoning the
stiles into the rails, you could rabbet the rails and fit
the stiles with a bridle joint, making it a decorative
element. Perhaps make the stiles thicker than the rails
so they stood a little proud or maybe routing a bead or
something along the edges. That would hide the lower joint,
and making the top flush would be easy.

(I saw pictures of a piece done that way somewhere, thought
it was a neat technique)

John

On 7/27/2015 4:15 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the
deviation in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the
tops of the stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or
would you somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Now the Sketchup question:

I drew the bottom and top rails first, including the arch. Then I drew
the stiles in place, butting up to the bottom rail properly, but with
excess length at the top. I opened a stile for editing, selected the
front face and tried to "intersect faces with model". Sketchup told me
there was no intersection. I think I've had this happen before. If two
surfaces are in the same plane, even if they obviously overlap, Sketchup
does not consider that "intersection".

As a workaround, I moved the top rail forward by half the thickness of
the "wood" and then did the "Intersect Faces" procedure on the front
face of the stile. This time it drew the line I was looking for on the
front face of the stile. I used the "pull" tool to "trim" the stile to
mate with the arch. Then I moved the top rail back to its intended
position.

Is this simply how Sketchup works? Or is there some other way to make
parts whose faces are in the same plane "mate"?

Ok, one more example of using the top arc on the rail as a template to
guide the top bearing flush cut router bit.
I had a variable arc curve MDF template that I clamped to the cutting
boards and cut a 1/4" deep grove in the cutting board. Then band sawed
down the middle of the grove to separate the halves. Then removed the
remainder using the existing original grove to guide the bit to remove
the remaining waste. The strips you see go all the way through the
boards and for each group of strips I cut the cutting board again.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb112...posted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb112...posted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb112...posted-public/

So...... this method does work if you want a perfect fit. ;~)

On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:
Clamp stiles precisely where you want them,
under the top rail. With a top bearing flush cut bit in your router use
the clamped top rail as the guide to cut a groove on the face of the
stile.
Once you have all stiles grooved, remove and cut off the excess, close to
the line you want to keep. Now use that edge again to guide the bit to
remove the remainder. Make several passes.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this sounds like a recipe for a stile that
is too short; too short by the diameter of the router bit. Further,
suppose I were to shift the stile 1/2" (my bit diameter) with respect to
the rail "template", it still won't trace the same curve, not quite
anyway. Now in this case it would probably work as the "curve" is
extremely close to being a straight line. But with a tighter curve, I
don't think the parts would mate properly.

Have I misconstrued what you meant somehow?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 7/27/2015 4:15 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the
deviation in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the
tops of the stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or
would you somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Now the Sketchup question:

I drew the bottom and top rails first, including the arch. Then I drew
the stiles in place, butting up to the bottom rail properly, but with
excess length at the top. I opened a stile for editing, selected the
front face and tried to "intersect faces with model". Sketchup told me
there was no intersection. I think I've had this happen before. If two
surfaces are in the same plane, even if they obviously overlap, Sketchup
does not consider that "intersection".

As a workaround, I moved the top rail forward by half the thickness of
the "wood" and then did the "Intersect Faces" procedure on the front
face of the stile. This time it drew the line I was looking for on the
front face of the stile. I used the "pull" tool to "trim" the stile to
mate with the arch. Then I moved the top rail back to its intended
position.

Is this simply how Sketchup works? Or is there some other way to make
parts whose faces are in the same plane "mate"?


OK! Nevermind. My suggestion will NOT work well.

The arc on the stile will end up with a radius that is 1/2" shorter than
the 36' radius on the rail/pattern. Assuming you use a 1/2" flush cut bit.

There will be a gap unless you put a 1/2" strip between the rail and the
stile, again assuming you use a 1/2" bit.

Hope this was not too late.

On 7/27/2015 8:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:
Clamp stiles precisely where you want them,
under the top rail. With a top bearing flush cut bit in your
router use
the clamped top rail as the guide to cut a groove on the face of the
stile.
Once you have all stiles grooved, remove and cut off the excess, close to
the line you want to keep. Now use that edge again to guide the bit to
remove the remainder. Make several passes.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this sounds like a recipe for a stile that
is too short; too short by the diameter of the router bit.

OK, you left out the part where I said to cut the stiles long. Cut
those to the correct length after tweaking the fit at the top rail joint.

Further,
suppose I were to shift the stile 1/2" (my bit diameter) with respect to
the rail "template", it still won't trace the same curve, not quite
anyway. Now in this case it would probably work as the "curve" is
extremely close to being a straight line. But with a tighter curve, I
don't think the parts would mate properly.

Yes! you are right and I just a moment ago and addressed this. The
radius on the stile will be 35'-11.5" instead of 36'.

On my cutting boards this work great because I fill the 1/2" removed
material with 4, 1/8" thick strips.

Others have mentioned cutting a straight line and what is going to leave
you with some kind of gap. BUT John mentioned tweaking with a block
plane, so that would work too. Regardless of which method you use cut
your stiles several inches too long and after you have it good enough
cut the stiles to the correct length.


Have I misconstrued what you meant somehow?

No you understood me correctly, I made the mistake. I was just
remembering how I did this 7 months ago with the cutting boards.
It would still work for you but you would have to put a 1/2" filler
strip in the middle of the joint and that in this case would look wonky.

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the curve
with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material to the
curved line.

Keep in mind that your arc is probably not going to be perfect so unless
you use the exact position of placement as a reference the fit may be
inconsistent on all of the stiles.

Just something to think about and it may not fit into your plans but
build it like my cabinet doors in the link I supplied, Top rail between
stiles. Then cut another rail to put over the front of the top rail to
hide the joints. That top rail doing the hiding could be most any
thickness.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 7/27/2015 8:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:
Clamp stiles precisely where you want them,
under the top rail. With a top bearing flush cut bit in your
router use
the clamped top rail as the guide to cut a groove on the face of the
stile.
Once you have all stiles grooved, remove and cut off the excess, close to
the line you want to keep. Now use that edge again to guide the bit to
remove the remainder. Make several passes.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this sounds like a recipe for a stile that
is too short; too short by the diameter of the router bit.

OK, you left out the part where I said to cut the stiles long. Cut
those to the correct length after tweaking the fit at the top rail joint.

Further,
suppose I were to shift the stile 1/2" (my bit diameter) with respect to
the rail "template", it still won't trace the same curve, not quite
anyway. Now in this case it would probably work as the "curve" is
extremely close to being a straight line. But with a tighter curve, I
don't think the parts would mate properly.

Yes! you are right and I just a moment ago and addressed this. The
radius on the stile will be 35'-11.5" instead of 36'.

On my cutting boards this work great because I fill the 1/2" removed
material with 4, 1/8" thick strips.

Others have mentioned cutting a straight line and what is going to leave
you with some kind of gap. BUT John mentioned tweaking with a block
plane, so that would work too. Regardless of which method you use cut
your stiles several inches too long and after you have it good enough
cut the stiles to the correct length.


Have I misconstrued what you meant somehow?

No you understood me correctly, I made the mistake. I was just
remembering how I did this 7 months ago with the cutting boards.
It would still work for you but you would have to put a 1/2" filler
strip in the middle of the joint and that in this case would look wonky.

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the curve
with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material to the
curved line.

Keep in mind that your arc is probably not going to be perfect so unless
you use the exact position of placement as a reference the fit may be
inconsistent on all of the stiles.

Just something to think about and it may not fit into your plans but
build it like my cabinet doors in the link I supplied, Top rail between
stiles. Then cut another rail to put over the front of the top rail to
hide the joints. That top rail doing the hiding could be most any
thickness.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

My block planes are not sharp enough to trim end grain, properly.

I think I'd have better control using a sanding block to form the arc on the stiles. It's not a lot to sand off, even for 4 stiles. I'd try to cut the stiles' ends with less than 1/4 degree of bevel, *straight across. Most of the sanding would be along the point of the beveled edge/face and it would be sanded as far as, at least, 3/4 of the face. If 3/4 of the face fits flush, that should be good enough.

I'd set the saw blade to perpendicular and prop up the other end of the stile about 1/16" ( 1/8"), to cut that small an angle of bevel.

*Straight across cut: If you want the best angle (not exactly straight across) brace end of the stile away from the (miter/chop) saw's fence by a tad.. That angle is nominal, but at least you can easily adjust that "eyeballed" cut, also.

Do a test cut and sand/plane on some scrap.

Sonny

On 7/27/2015 10:11 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/27/2015 8:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:
Clamp stiles precisely where you want them,
under the top rail. With a top bearing flush cut bit in your
router use
the clamped top rail as the guide to cut a groove on the face of the
stile.
Once you have all stiles grooved, remove and cut off the excess,
close to
the line you want to keep. Now use that edge again to guide the bit to
remove the remainder. Make several passes.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this sounds like a recipe for a stile that
is too short; too short by the diameter of the router bit.

OK, you left out the part where I said to cut the stiles long. Cut
those to the correct length after tweaking the fit at the top rail joint.

Sounds like a good idea.

Further,
suppose I were to shift the stile 1/2" (my bit diameter) with respect to
the rail "template", it still won't trace the same curve, not quite
anyway. Now in this case it would probably work as the "curve" is
extremely close to being a straight line. But with a tighter curve, I
don't think the parts would mate properly.

Yes! you are right and I just a moment ago and addressed this. The
radius on the stile will be 35'-11.5" instead of 36'.

On my cutting boards this work great because I fill the 1/2" removed
material with 4, 1/8" thick strips.

Others have mentioned cutting a straight line and what is going to leave
you with some kind of gap. BUT John mentioned tweaking with a block
plane, so that would work too. Regardless of which method you use cut
your stiles several inches too long and after you have it good enough
cut the stiles to the correct length.


Have I misconstrued what you meant somehow?

No you understood me correctly, I made the mistake.

It had to happen sometime. Consider me the stopped clock.

I was just
remembering how I did this 7 months ago with the cutting boards.
It would still work for you but you would have to put a 1/2" filler
strip in the middle of the joint and that in this case would look wonky.

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the curve
with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material to the
curved line.

No disc sander here. But we are talking about less than 2 thousandths.
That shouldn't be difficult by hand. What I'm still trying to visualize
is whether or not that .0018" "rise" that represents the difference
between the curve and a straight line would be visible. Is there a rule
of thumb?

Keep in mind that your arc is probably not going to be perfect

That's something I'm reminded of all too often.

so unless
you use the exact position of placement as a reference the fit may be
inconsistent on all of the stiles.

Just something to think about and it may not fit into your plans but
build it like my cabinet doors in the link I supplied, Top rail between
stiles. Then cut another rail to put over the front of the top rail to
hide the joints. That top rail doing the hiding could be most any
thickness.

I may draw that to see if I like the look. This is all pretty far off -
time-wise - by the way. It's just a twinkle in my eye. My wife and I
were just discussing the possibility and I whipped up a sketch.

On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:

Typically rails, outer rails fit between stiles.

I've done that with doors. But in this case the entire unit will be
above head height:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

[this drawing didn't have the arch]

I figured it would look better without the end grain showing.

On 7/28/2015 9:13 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/27/2015 10:11 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/27/2015 8:48 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:
Clamp stiles precisely where you want them,
under the top rail. With a top bearing flush cut bit in your
router use
the clamped top rail as the guide to cut a groove on the face of the
stile.
Once you have all stiles grooved, remove and cut off the excess,
close to
the line you want to keep. Now use that edge again to guide the bit to
remove the remainder. Make several passes.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this sounds like a recipe for a stile that
is too short; too short by the diameter of the router bit.

OK, you left out the part where I said to cut the stiles long. Cut
those to the correct length after tweaking the fit at the top rail joint.

Sounds like a good idea.

Yes, any time you get into something other than a straight cut on a
joint it is a good idea to cut a little long so that you have some
wiggle room while you sneak up on the fit.




Further,
suppose I were to shift the stile 1/2" (my bit diameter) with respect to
the rail "template", it still won't trace the same curve, not quite
anyway. Now in this case it would probably work as the "curve" is
extremely close to being a straight line. But with a tighter curve, I
don't think the parts would mate properly.

Yes! you are right and I just a moment ago and addressed this. The
radius on the stile will be 35'-11.5" instead of 36'.

On my cutting boards this work great because I fill the 1/2" removed
material with 4, 1/8" thick strips.

Others have mentioned cutting a straight line and what is going to leave
you with some kind of gap. BUT John mentioned tweaking with a block
plane, so that would work too. Regardless of which method you use cut
your stiles several inches too long and after you have it good enough
cut the stiles to the correct length.


Have I misconstrued what you meant somehow?

No you understood me correctly, I made the mistake.

It had to happen sometime. Consider me the stopped clock.

LOL, I make plenty of mistakes but then that is how you learn and see
why that idea or method will not work.




I was just
remembering how I did this 7 months ago with the cutting boards.
It would still work for you but you would have to put a 1/2" filler
strip in the middle of the joint and that in this case would look wonky.

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the curve
with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material to the
curved line.

No disc sander here. But we are talking about less than 2 thousandths.
That shouldn't be difficult by hand. What I'm still trying to visualize
is whether or not that .0018" "rise" that represents the difference
between the curve and a straight line would be visible. Is there a rule
of thumb?

Test on a scrap. BUT .002 would probably not be viable especially on a
coarse grain wood. BUT there is going to be less glue contact area, 2
points that actually touch and regular wood glues need to have a tight a
fit. NOW if you dado the backs of the face frame, to receive the
carcass of the cab, that would probably reinforce the joint and you
could putty the gap if it is visible. OR pocket hole the joint from the
back side of the joint and you would probably be good to go although
dadoing the back of the face frame could be touchy to miss the pocket holes.

And or build it like in the drawing in the previous post and add a
curved piece on top of the face frame.





Keep in mind that your arc is probably not going to be perfect

That's something I'm reminded of all too often.

Well unless anyone has a CNC it is not going to happen.



so unless
you use the exact position of placement as a reference the fit may be
inconsistent on all of the stiles.

Just something to think about and it may not fit into your plans but
build it like my cabinet doors in the link I supplied, Top rail between
stiles. Then cut another rail to put over the front of the top rail to
hide the joints. That top rail doing the hiding could be most any
thickness.

I may draw that to see if I like the look. This is all pretty far off -
time-wise - by the way. It's just a twinkle in my eye. My wife and I
were just discussing the possibility and I whipped up a sketch.


Well good luck!

On 7/28/2015 9:16 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/27/2015 5:36 PM, Leon wrote:

Typically rails, outer rails fit between stiles.

I've done that with doors. But in this case the entire unit will be
above head height:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

[this drawing didn't have the arch]

I figured it would look better without the end grain showing.


Yes and you could always cover the bottom of the entire face frame with
a 1/4" strip of wood to cover the entire bottom, joints and all.

On 7/27/2015 4:15 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
If you wanted to build a face frame whose top member was arched, like this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguar...in/dateposted/

... how would you form the tops of the stiles? My sense of geometry
tells me that over a 2.5" width, an arc with a radius of 36 feet would
deviate from a straight line by a very small amount. (the height of the
deviation in the middle of the arch is 1") So would you simply cut the
tops of the stiles at the proper angles, leaving the cut straight, or
would you somehow form a very slight curve to mate with the arched rail?

Not difficult at all to make a jig to route the exact arch in the top of
the stile.

You still want the joinery to fit perfectly, both for aesthetics,
strength, and peace of mind.

Think JIG ... and use SU to your advantage:

Print, to scale, a template of the top curve of the part, which you can
then use to both paste on the top of the stiles for the rough cut, and
for making a simple router jig(s) to make the precision fit.

Since you are working on end grain of the stile, build a backup piece
into the jig to mitigate tear out.

Just one, of many ways, to skin that cat. But doing it in such a manner
that is is both pleasing and structurally sound makes you feel better in
the long run.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Greg Guarino wrote:

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the
curve with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material to
the curved line.

No disc sander here. But we are talking about less than 2 thousandths.
That shouldn't be difficult by hand. What I'm still trying to
visualize is whether or not that .0018" "rise" that represents the
difference between the curve and a straight line would be visible. Is
there a rule of thumb?

Yes, absolutely!! A RCH MAY make a difference (sometimes) but 1/500 never.

Cut it staight, clamp tight; no need to obsess, wood compresses.

On 7/28/2015 1:10 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the
curve with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material to
the curved line.

No disc sander here. But we are talking about less than 2 thousandths.
That shouldn't be difficult by hand. What I'm still trying to
visualize is whether or not that .0018" "rise" that represents the
difference between the curve and a straight line would be visible. Is
there a rule of thumb?

Yes, absolutely!! A RCH MAY make a difference (sometimes) but 1/500 never.

Geez. Yet another tool to buy:

http://www.chruler.com/

Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/28/2015 1:10 PM, dadiOH wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:

Alternatively clamp the stiles in the correct position, trace the
curve with a pencil, and use a disk sander to remove the material
to the curved line.

No disc sander here. But we are talking about less than 2
thousandths. That shouldn't be difficult by hand. What I'm still
trying to visualize is whether or not that .0018" "rise" that represents
the
difference between the curve and a straight line would be visible.
Is there a rule of thumb?

Yes, absolutely!! A RCH MAY make a difference (sometimes) but
1/500 never.

Geez. Yet another tool to buy:

http://www.chruler.com/

I see that they are cheaper in bulk...time to stock up for all your friends


Precision in woodworking is rather a "sorta" thing. Once, long ago and far
away when lumber yards still did mill work, I needed to make a skylight for
my boat and took a cut list to a yard. I don't recall the exact
measurements but one piece was so many inches and some 64ths. They balked
at that, said they couldn't cut it that precisely so I asked about 32nd of
an inch. Yes, they could do that.

So how is cutting to 1/32 any easier than cutting to 1/64? Both are precise
and measurable. The answer is, there is always some slop, regardless of the
measurement; i.e., cutting to 1/32 may be close but there is some slop +-.
Ditto to 1/4. Or even 1"...blades wobble, the marking on measuring devices
have width.

Since then I haven't worried NEARLY as much about precision. Which is not
to say I don't TRY to get stuff "on the money", just that I don't worry
about things being a skosh off. As I said, "Clamp tight, wood compresses".
It does. It also bends.

What I DO worry about is getting everything that is to be a particular
length/width/thickness the same; if off a bit, I want them ALL off a bit,
all the same. To
that end, I don't use measuring tapes all that much, prefer story sticks
marked with a knife cut.

dadiOH wrote:

Precision in woodworking is rather a "sorta" thing. Once, long ago
and far away when lumber yards still did mill work, I needed to make
a skylight for my boat and took a cut list to a yard. I don't recall
the exact measurements but one piece was so many inches and some
64ths. They balked at that, said they couldn't cut it that precisely
so I asked about 32nd of an inch. Yes, they could do that.

So how is cutting to 1/32 any easier than cutting to 1/64? Both are
precise and measurable.

I agree. In this case we are not talking about tolerances, which can be a
horse of a different color. Here, we're talking about a measurement. One
tick on a tape measure is the same as any other tick on a tape measure. If
one can put a mark at the 1" mark, then one can just as easily put a mark on
the 1 16/4th point. Again - tolerances are not a matter of this discussion.
I saw the same thing at HD - they would not cut to 1/8". I never understood
that - what is the difference between that tick mark on the tape and the 1"
tick mark?

--

-Mike-

"dadiOH" wrote:

What I DO worry about is getting everything that is to be a
particular
length/width/thickness the same; if off a bit, I want them ALL off a
bit, all the same. To
that end, I don't use measuring tapes all that much, prefer story
sticks
marked with a knife cut.

---------------------------------------------
Amen.

If you need multiple pieces of a specific size, then cut them all plus
spares from a single set up.

No matter how hard you try, you can never repeat a setup exactly.

You will always be off by a few RCH.

Lew

On 7/28/2015 3:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
If you need multiple pieces of a specific size, then cut them all plus
spares from a single set up.

I'm not sure why, but I grasped that pretty early on. I think it's my
abiding faith in my own imprecision. I figure I may not get the
measurement exact, but I can make all the parts exactly the same.

On 7/28/2015 2:54 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/28/2015 3:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
If you need multiple pieces of a specific size, then cut them all plus
spares from a single set up.

I'm not sure why, but I grasped that pretty early on. I think it's my
abiding faith in my own imprecision. I figure I may not get the
measurement exact, but I can make all the parts exactly the same.

It's called "batch cutting" and, as has been preached here numerous
times down through the years, is absolutely necessary to obtain the holy
grail of woodworking: SQUARE

In cabinetry and furniture making, SQUARE is the goal, "batch cutting"
the most important methodology in attaining it.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Swingman writes:
On 7/28/2015 2:54 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/28/2015 3:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
If you need multiple pieces of a specific size, then cut them all plus
spares from a single set up.

I'm not sure why, but I grasped that pretty early on. I think it's my
abiding faith in my own imprecision. I figure I may not get the
measurement exact, but I can make all the parts exactly the same.

It's called "batch cutting" and, as has been preached here numerous
times down through the years, is absolutely necessary to obtain the holy
grail of woodworking: SQUARE

In cabinetry and furniture making, SQUARE is the goal, "batch cutting"
the most important methodology in attaining it.

I would suggest that "batch cutting" leads to consistency, not squareness.

On 7/29/2015 10:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Swingman writes:
On 7/28/2015 2:54 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/28/2015 3:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
If you need multiple pieces of a specific size, then cut them all plus
spares from a single set up.

I'm not sure why, but I grasped that pretty early on. I think it's my
abiding faith in my own imprecision. I figure I may not get the
measurement exact, but I can make all the parts exactly the same.

It's called "batch cutting" and, as has been preached here numerous
times down through the years, is absolutely necessary to obtain the holy
grail of woodworking: SQUARE

In cabinetry and furniture making, SQUARE is the goal, "batch cutting"
the most important methodology in attaining it.

I would suggest that "batch cutting" leads to consistency, not squareness.

I think he means that if you have four members arranged in a rectangle,
you can only achieve square corners if the two horizontal members are
exactly of equal length, and the same for the verticals. Now you also
need square cuts, or else you may end up with a parallelogram (or worse)
instead.

On 7/29/2015 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Swingman writes:
On 7/28/2015 2:54 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
On 7/28/2015 3:49 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
If you need multiple pieces of a specific size, then cut them all plus
spares from a single set up.

I'm not sure why, but I grasped that pretty early on. I think it's my
abiding faith in my own imprecision. I figure I may not get the
measurement exact, but I can make all the parts exactly the same.

It's called "batch cutting" and, as has been preached here numerous
times down through the years, is absolutely necessary to obtain the holy
grail of woodworking: SQUARE

In cabinetry and furniture making, SQUARE is the goal, "batch cutting"
the most important methodology in attaining it.

I would suggest that "batch cutting" leads to consistency, not squareness.


Well that went with out saying but with out batch cutting, square, the
goal, is more difficult to achieve.

On 7/29/2015 10:45 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:

I think he means that if you have four members arranged in a rectangle,
you can only achieve square corners if the two horizontal members are
exactly of equal length, and the same for the verticals.

As your need to clarify attests ... and even with the Subject clearly
dealing with "face frames" ... the main reason for some being here is
not necessarily sharing woodworking experiences, but instead looking for
an argument using misdirection, silly semantics, and unsuccessful
attempts at logical thought.

Now you also
need square cuts, or else you may end up with a parallelogram (or worse)
instead.

LOL Absolutely no doubt there are some, with square components being a
stated goal, who would NOT go to great lengths to insure that his/her
cuts were indeed square to begin with .... like that woodworking ace
teaching drawer making?



--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)