With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:24:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.

Try setting as you have, but back it off that 1/32" before you feed???

On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?
....

It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.

I've never had one of the "lunchbox" small planers so I can't speak for
their precise adjustment processes, but every planer I've ever had or
used has detailed setup instructions that give precise measurements and
steps for adjustments.

They also have the outfeed rollers spring-loaded so to account for the
difference in thickness between taking off a thin shaving vis a vis a
full cut.

But, the unloaded position has to be high enough the infeed rollers have
enough "oomph" to get it under the outfeed roller so it can do its job;
if it's too low or the infeed doesn't have enough grip, then you can
have the issue.

I've been told these little guys don't have it, but it's also possible
with a "real" planer that the pressure bar is too low and the board will
hit or drag on it.

Another alternative on the cast iron machines I'm used to is that the
rear bed rollers may be too high but I understand these guys don't have
them, either???

What is the particular planer you have?

--

On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-5, Markem wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:24:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.

Try setting as you have, but back it off that 1/32" before you feed???

You obviously missed the point of my post. My process was just a test. With the planer running
the board feeds through fine.

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:28:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?
...

It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.

Just to be clear, it's only a barrier with the planer off. When the board is fed into the
planet with the power on, it does not stop at the back roller.


I've never had one of the "lunchbox" small planers so I can't speak for
their precise adjustment processes, but every planer I've ever had or
used has detailed setup instructions that give precise measurements and
steps for adjustments.

The only adjustment given is an adjustment to prevent tapered cuts by ensuring
that the roller assembly is parallel to the bed in a side-to-side manner.

I will check that, but I don't think that that is what I am curious about. My question
in more about front-to-back.


They also have the outfeed rollers spring-loaded so to account for the
difference in thickness between taking off a thin shaving vis a vis a
full cut.

But, the unloaded position has to be high enough the infeed rollers have
enough "oomph" to get it under the outfeed roller so it can do its job;
if it's too low or the infeed doesn't have enough grip, then you can
have the issue.

Again, with the power on, the infeed roller has no problem pushing the board
hard enough for the outfeed roller to grab it. It's only with the power off that I
notice the board stop when it reaches the outfeed roller.


I've been told these little guys don't have it, but it's also possible
with a "real" planer that the pressure bar is too low and the board will l
hit or drag on it.

Another alternative on the cast iron machines I'm used to is that the
rear bed rollers may be too high but I understand these guys don't have
them, either???

No pressure bar, no bed rollers.


What is the particular planer you have?


WEN Model 6550, 12.5 inch.

On 1/28/2019 7:01 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:28:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?
...

It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.

Just to be clear, it's only a barrier with the planer off. When the board is fed into the
planet with the power on, it does not stop at the back roller.
....

Again, with the power on, the infeed roller has no problem pushing the board
hard enough for the outfeed roller to grab it. It's only with the power off that I
notice the board stop when it reaches the outfeed roller.

....

Well, why would you do that???? Of COURSE it will hit the outfeed
roller; how else could it possibly have enough friction applied to do
any good when planing?

--

On 1/27/19 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.


It is probably set up perfectly fine.

Most planer feed rollers are spring loaded and will have some vertical
give to them.
My guess is when you force the board under the front roller, it pushed
the roller up into the spring. When the board meets the back roller,
the difference in height is the amount of upward travel in the from
roller.

If you continued to force the board under the back roller, it would
likely raise up to the same height as the front.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 03:58:29 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 11:41:43 PM UTC-5, Markem wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:24:58 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.

Try setting as you have, but back it off that 1/32" before you feed???

You obviously missed the point of my post. My process was just a test. With the planer running
the board feeds through fine.

Then I would say that it is set up correctly.

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:58:14 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/27/19 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.


It is probably set up perfectly fine.

Most planer feed rollers are spring loaded and will have some vertical
give to them.
My guess is when you force the board under the front roller, it pushed
the roller up into the spring.

Perhaps I'm not explaining my "test" very well. I am not forcing the board
under the front roller in the normal "infeed" sense.

I placed the board on the bed and slid it back and forth under the infeed
roller as I lowered the assembly. As soon as I felt the *slightest* amount
of resistance from the front roller, I stopped lowering the assembly. Like
zero resistance, then a 1/4" turn (1/64") and there's the tiniest bit of
drag. So little drag that all up and down motion is eliminated but I can
still push the board with my pinky.

Then when I push the board in farther, it come to a hard stop at the
outfeed roller.

When the board meets the back roller,
the difference in height is the amount of upward travel in the from
roller.

I don't think so. I think the difference in height is much more than
that.


If you continued to force the board under the back roller, it would
likely raise up to the same height as the front.

Sure, but should I have to *force* it? It no longer takes just a pinky to
the get the board under the outfeed. It takes a considerable amount of full
hand push, so much that if the wheels on the cart weren't locked, I could
push it across the shop.

The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:07:21 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2019 7:01 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:28:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/27/2019 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?
...

It needs to be where it will pull the material on through after passing
the cutterhead, yes, but not so low as to be a barrier.

Just to be clear, it's only a barrier with the planer off. When the board is fed into the
planet with the power on, it does not stop at the back roller.
...

Again, with the power on, the infeed roller has no problem pushing the board
hard enough for the outfeed roller to grab it. It's only with the power off that I
notice the board stop when it reaches the outfeed roller.

...

Well, why would you do that???? Of COURSE it will hit the outfeed
roller; how else could it possibly have enough friction applied to do
any good when planing?


See my response to Mike. I provided a some more detail as to what I am
doing and what happens.

On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?

See my response above...how could it possibly function unless it is
lower and by enough to still have sufficient friction force applied to
pull the material on through the planer _EVEN AT THE THICKEST POSSIBLE
CUT_???

I don't know what the limit stop is on these baby planers, it's 1/8" on
my PM180 so the outfeed has to be roughly that much lower or you would
have to adjust it on the fly for every significant cut thickness.

Even the little old Rockwell/Delta Model 13 is 3/32" to the stop bar...

--

On 1/28/19 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:58:14 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/27/19 8:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
With the planer off, I lowered the cutter assembly just low enough that the
infeed roller exerted just a little bit of drag on the board as I manually
pushed it in. I ensured that the board was not tilted upward as I pushed it
through.

When I continued to push it through, it stopped when it reached the outfeed
roller. I had to raise the assembly just under 1/32" to allow the board to
go under the outfeed roller.

Is the outfeed roller supposed to be lower than the infeed roller since the
assumption is that the board is thinner once the blades have removed some
wood?

I verified that the bed is coplaner with both the infeed and outfeed tables.
I then inserted my 6' planer sled and verified that it was flat and level.
The inserted board did the same thing: stopped when it hit the outfeed roller.


It is probably set up perfectly fine.

Most planer feed rollers are spring loaded and will have some vertical
give to them.
My guess is when you force the board under the front roller, it pushed
the roller up into the spring.

Perhaps I'm not explaining my "test" very well. I am not forcing the board
under the front roller in the normal "infeed" sense.

I placed the board on the bed and slid it back and forth under the infeed
roller as I lowered the assembly. As soon as I felt the *slightest* amount
of resistance from the front roller, I stopped lowering the assembly. Like
zero resistance, then a 1/4" turn (1/64") and there's the tiniest bit of
drag. So little drag that all up and down motion is eliminated but I can
still push the board with my pinky.

Then when I push the board in farther, it come to a hard stop at the
outfeed roller.

When the board meets the back roller,
the difference in height is the amount of upward travel in the from
roller.

I don't think so. I think the difference in height is much more than
that.


If you continued to force the board under the back roller, it would
likely raise up to the same height as the front.

Sure, but should I have to *force* it? It no longer takes just a pinky to
the get the board under the outfeed. It takes a considerable amount of full
hand push, so much that if the wheels on the cart weren't locked, I could
push it across the shop.

The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?


Call the company.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?

Went and looked and I'd actually forgotten on the Model 13 both are set
the same height, only the compression spring is adjustable.

http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1141/18135.pdf

shows how a planer is designed to work and has some very useful
description of usage that is applicable for any.

Now I don't know about these little guys...well, gargle,gargle...oh!
there actually is a manual! It says right there

"The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."

Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
these are fixed, too...

Inspection of the way the thing is constructed should answer the
question, but I'm guessing there is no adjustment provided to change the
position.

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1078112/Wen-6550.html?page=16#manual

--

On 1/28/2019 7:30 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?

Went and looked and I'd actually forgotten on the Model 13 both are set
the same height, only the compression spring is adjustable.

http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1141/18135.pdf

shows how a planer is designed to work and has some very useful
description of usage that is applicable for any.

Now I don't know about these little guys...well, gargle,gargle...oh!
there actually is a manual!Â* It says right there

"The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."

....

http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/655/1296.pdf

Now, here's a kni^h^h^hplaner!

It doesn't show the outfeed rollers; you're on your on to adjust as see
fit! I'm almost certain I remember they do have both compression spring
and height adjustment but I'll have go look to be certain; I've not had
to adjust it in years...one advantage of the mass--nothing flimsy to it...

--

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:30:53 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2019 4:25 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

The outfeed roller is definitely lower than the infeed roller and that is
what my question is. Should it be?

Went and looked and I'd actually forgotten on the Model 13 both are set
the same height, only the compression spring is adjustable.

http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/1141/18135.pdf

shows how a planer is designed to work and has some very useful
description of usage that is applicable for any.

Now I don't know about these little guys...well, gargle,gargle...oh!
there actually is a manual! It says right there

"The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."

That's exactly what the manual for my planer says.

The thing is, they might as well have added the words "are supposed to be",
as in "infeed and outfeed rollers *are supposed to be* adjusted to the
correct height".

That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
"the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
"correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?

In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
mean that it's set up correctly.


Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
these are fixed, too...

There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
up. That's what I'm trying to determine.



Inspection of the way the thing is constructed should answer the
question, but I'm guessing there is no adjustment provided to change the
position.

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1078112/Wen-6550.html?page=16#manual


I figured that anyone who had a planer similar to mine (e.g. lunchbox)
could try my simple test and let me know what theirs does.

The company I shall call.

On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
"the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
"correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?

In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
mean that it's set up correctly.


Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
these are fixed, too...

There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
up. That's what I'm trying to determine.

....

Well, if works, doesn't it?

Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.

--

On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 8:30:53 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
....

"The planer is supplied with planing blades mounted in the cutterhead
and infeed and outfeed rollers adjusted to the correct height."

That's exactly what the manual for my planer says.
....


In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
mean that it's set up correctly.
....

There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
up. That's what I'm trying to determine.
....

Is the thing constructed so you _could_ adjust them if you wanted to, or
are they in a solidly-mounted assembly? For these little guys, I'd not
be terribly surprised if the latter were the case...there's only one
place they _can_ be. Then again, they may be mounted in a
bearing/sleeve holder on a threaded rod so they can be moved but if so
would expect would be part of the maintenance/setup info.

I thought maybe the manual would have a picture of the actual machine.

I still think the real answer is "If it works, it's OK!" How it acts
dead is pretty-much totally immaterial; go make chips!

--

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:35:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
"the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
"correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?

In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
mean that it's set up correctly.


Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
these are fixed, too...

There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
up. That's what I'm trying to determine.

...

Well, if works, doesn't it?

Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.


Your supposition only holds true if the answer to your question is "yes".

The issue is that I don't know if "it works" or not.

Let's start from the beginning.

This is my first planer and my first use of a planer. I jumped right into
it. I built a planing sled so that I could flatten some twisted boards.
The sled is flat and level, my board is supported so that it doesn't rock.

(The end closest to the planer touching the sled, the far end shimmed and
secured.)

I marked the full length of the board so that I would know when the entire
length had been planed flat. Supposedly, once all the marks are gone, I
should be able to flip the board over and it should lay completely flat on
the sled. The problem is that when I flip it over, the "far end", the end
that was shimmed, does not touch the sled. There is a gap between the sled
and that end of the board. (It's not the result of snipe. The gap extends
beyond the little area of snipe at the end of the board.)

This happened on 2 different boards, so it's either my technique, my sled,
or my planer. OK, so I made a smaller sled, tried a shorter board and got
the same results. That leaves my technique or the planer. My technique matches
what I've seen on youtube and read about, so I think that leaves my planer.

That's when the I started looking at the planer and seeing what I could
find out. That's when I tried my push test. That's when I found that the
back roller was presenting an obstacle. That's when I posted my question.

Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
trying to determine what is causing the problem.

Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
some answers.

On 1/29/2019 5:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
trying to determine what is causing the problem.

....

That's what a planer does. Period. If it does that, it works.

I recommend to get some scrap stock of decent thickness, joint one face
flat and then run it through the planer several times.

It should subsequently measure identically the same thickness at all
four corners.

If that test works, then there's nothing wrong with the planer itself at
all, everything has to be in the other part of the equation.

But trying to determine if the planer functions correctly with all that
in the mix without knowing it a priori is too many variables to control
to ever come to a conclusion as to the root cause of a problem.

As for whether the design has the outfeed rollers lower than the infeed;
chasing that is a pointless errand if it functions correctly; they will
have been shown to be immaterial.

--

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
some answers.

So a straight egde on the flattened side of the reveal it is not flat?
Maybe flip the board end for end, maybe just the sled with the board
while planing. I have not used my planer to flatten twisted stock, I
start out on my jointer.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

I'm trying to flatten the
long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
trying to determine what is causing the problem.

Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".
--
Jerry O.

On 1/30/2019 12:41 AM, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

I'm trying to flatten the
long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
trying to determine what is causing the problem.

Are you shimming under the boards anywhere they are not touching the sled?
If one edge is not touching the sled I'd want a shim every 12".

At least, and depending on the thickness of the stock and the material,
perhaps will need far more than that to take any flexing out of the
workpiece itself as it goes through. Planers exert quite a _lot_ of
downward force and wood is an elastic material.

Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
twisted material going through the planer. D-D may simply be deforming
the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
strongly enough for the task.

The plain planing (so to speak ) exercise will at least eliminate
that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.

But if his stock he's trying to straighten is 4/4 or less, it's going to
take a really solid support all along the length to keep it from just
bowing as it goes through...why I've rarely in 50 years done the
exercise for other than heavy stock--it's just too much bother given
there are better ways to rough prepare the material first or just use
better material from the git-go and find other uses for the specific
material. Unless it's a really exotic, high-priced or truly remarkable
in some other way, the result just is rarely worth the effort in my book.

--

On 1/30/2019 9:01 AM, dpb wrote:
....

The plain planing (so to speak ) exercise will at least eliminate
that the head isn't aligned with the table when the forces are uniform
across the stock; after that is confirmed then he can move on to better
arrangments to hold the workpiece and checking for other issues.
....

Typo -- "...the head isn't MISaligned..."

--dpb

On 1/30/2019 9:01 AM, dpb wrote:
....

Also, with these little lunchbox planers, the construction on the bed
mounts/head simply may not be stout-enough to resist the wracking forces
when there is a significantly different side-to-side loading owing to
twisted material going through the planer.Â* D-D may simply be deforming
the geometry of the planer itself in part because it isn't built
strongly enough for the task.
....

This can be checked by running a narrow piece partly thru the planer and
cutting power, then measuring the height from bed to head across the
width of the bed to see how much deformation there really is under load.

(When done, back off the bed/head depending on which is the movable
part, probably head? to remove the workpiece, obviously don't try to
restart with the workpiece still in place).

--

On 1/29/2019 6:17 PM, dpb wrote:
....

I recommend to get some scrap stock of decent thickness, joint one face
flat and then run it through the planer several times.

It should subsequently measure identically the same thickness at all
four corners.
....

And, keep the same orientation each pass -- several passes in the same
orientation will let you determine a very small misalignment that isn't
apparent on only one or two by compounding the error each pass. Wider
stock is better test material, too, of course...

--

On 1/29/2019 5:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:35:18 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/28/2019 8:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

That is basically the whole point of my question. I know what the manual
says but I don't if the guy/gal who put mine together did it right. Since I
don't know squat about planers, I have no idea if the engineer's idea of
"the correct height" is what my planer is actually set at. What does
"correct height" mean - both rollers the same distance from the bed or the
outfeed lower then the infeed roller by 1/32"?

In other words, just because mine came out the box the way it did doesn't
mean that it's set up correctly.


Ergo, while there's no cross-sectional drawing as in the other manual,
it appears like with the Model 13 the position of the rollers is fixed
and you may/may not have an adjustable pressure spring or it may be
these are fixed, too...

There is no adjustment on mine, so either uneven is right or it's screwed
up. That's what I'm trying to determine.

...

Well, if works, doesn't it?

Seems to me like you're looking to make a problem that doesn't exist.


Your supposition only holds true if the answer to your question is "yes".

The issue is that I don't know if "it works" or not.

Let's start from the beginning.

This is my first planer and my first use of a planer. I jumped right into
it. I built a planing sled so that I could flatten some twisted boards.
The sled is flat and level, my board is supported so that it doesn't rock.

(The end closest to the planer touching the sled, the far end shimmed and
secured.)

I marked the full length of the board so that I would know when the entire
length had been planed flat. Supposedly, once all the marks are gone, I
should be able to flip the board over and it should lay completely flat on
the sled. The problem is that when I flip it over, the "far end", the end
that was shimmed, does not touch the sled. There is a gap between the sled
and that end of the board. (It's not the result of snipe. The gap extends
beyond the little area of snipe at the end of the board.)

This happened on 2 different boards, so it's either my technique, my sled,
or my planer. OK, so I made a smaller sled, tried a shorter board and got
the same results. That leaves my technique or the planer. My technique matches
what I've seen on youtube and read about, so I think that leaves my planer.

That's when the I started looking at the planer and seeing what I could
find out. That's when I tried my push test. That's when I found that the
back roller was presenting an obstacle. That's when I posted my question.

Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly, but to be honest I
haven't spent a lot of time doing that since I'm trying to flatten the
long twisted boards first and use the thinnest of the resulting boards as
my final thickness. Since one end keeps coming out screwed up, I'm simply
trying to determine what is causing the problem.

Having nothing to compare my planer/technique to, I came here looking for
some answers.





If you are sending twisted boards through a planer you get twisted
results. You need to run the twisted boards through the planer on a
sled longer than the boards. AND you need yo chock the boards with
small wedges so that they, the boards, do not move while going through
the planer.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 5:27:44 PM UTC-6, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Short, already flat boards seem to plane down evenly,

In that case, your planer is working fine. What sled design are you using? Can you post a pic?

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.

Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.

Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.

Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.

Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.

Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.

Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.

How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
feed side? That's what I've been using.

On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
.....

If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
or my technique, just let me know.


https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg

In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.

What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
planing pass.

You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is 0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.

And, even though it is 8/4 material, poplar is quite soft/limber as
compared to, say, oak, so I would totally eliminate some flex there.

--

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
or my technique, just let me know.


https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg

In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.

What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
planing pass.

Other than me feeding the sled in and retrieving it on the way out, what aren't
you seeing? Should I post a link to a video? ;-)

That's the setup. What do you think is missing? Is it just the shims? If you
want me to insert shims and then take the picture again, I can, but I kind of
think that that would be a waste of time. On the twisted boards that I'm
actually trying to flatten, I am shimming the gaps both to eliminate any
rocking and fill them in to prevent flex.


You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is 0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.

The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".

As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
than 2'.

In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.


And, even though it is 8/4 material, poplar is quite soft/limber as
compared to, say, oak, so I would totally eliminate some flex there.

On 1/31/2019 5:57 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the
set-up
or my technique, just let me know.


https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg

In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.

What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
planing pass.

You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is 0.05 deg from true straight edge.Â* I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.

And, even though it is 8/4 material, poplar is quite soft/limber as
compared to, say, oak, so I would totally eliminate some flex there.
....
"...so I would _NOT_ totally eliminate some flex there."

--

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:10:59 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.

Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.

Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.

Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.

How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
feed side? That's what I've been using.

Yes, that is my solution also. I was suggesting that the OP might have a
similar problem.
--
Jerry O.

On 1/31/2019 6:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
or my technique, just let me know.


https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg

In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.

What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
planing pass.

Other than me feeding the sled in and retrieving it on the way out, what aren't
you seeing? Should I post a link to a video? ;-)

Something's moving but we've no way to tell what from static picture so
that _might_ be of some help, yes. Of course, from afar, it might not
be, either; no way to predict, really.


That's the setup. What do you think is missing? Is it just the shims? If you
want me to insert shims and then take the picture again, I can, but I kind of
think that that would be a waste of time. On the twisted boards that I'm
actually trying to flatten, I am shimming the gaps both to eliminate any
rocking and fill them in to prevent flex.

I don't think it would be a waste of time, no. Seeing just how you
shimmed it and what's holding what how could be a klew...then again, as
above, from afar, "maybe not!" but you've not found it so far on your
own, so what can it hurt?


You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is 0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.

The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".

As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
than 2'.

In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.

That tells me _something_ pretty major is happening that last foot,
then, and the video _might_ show it. I'm still curious about just what
the real stiffness of the machine itself is...I'll admit I've never used
one of the lunchbox planers "in anger" so I really don't have anything
to compare to but heavy iron but I've looked at various models in the
stores and they just look too flimsy for real work to me. I'm
suspicious something in the planer itself is giving with an irregular
geometry.

--

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 11:09:00 PM UTC-5, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:10:59 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.

Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.

Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.

Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.

How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
feed side? That's what I've been using.

Yes, that is my solution also. I was suggesting that the OP might have a
similar problem.

I *am* the OP.

I am already using what you suggested.

On 1/31/2019 3:10 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.

Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.

Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.

Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.

How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
feed side? That's what I've been using.


If your board has a twist or bow, as mentioned in another part of this
thread, a 100' long in feed and out feed will be of no help to
straighten/flatten the work. The work has to be supported where the
board bows up or twists up. I use small wedges between the
twisted/bowed work and a sled longer than the work.

The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
through the planer.

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
On 1/31/2019 3:10 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:19:30 PM UTC-6, Jerry Osage wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 07:23:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

How long is the workpiece and how are you supporting it coming out the
backside of the planner? That sounds like it may be that the whole
workpiece, sled and all is causing the rear table to droop and raising
the back end up into the cutter head owing to the moment arm off the
rear table...these little guys aren't all that beefy, the table may well
flex, too, without additional support.

Even if the out feed table does not flex the board will try to pivot the
tail end up with the fulcrum at the outer edge of the out feed table.

Although the in feed and out feed rollers in my planer are not spring loaded
they will flex and deform slightly causing what may be a similar problem if
my out feed support is slightly lower than the planer bed. Somewhere in the
last third of the board it will develop a very slight taper as the weight of
the board starts pressing up on the feed rollers - and a bad snipe when the
end of the board passes the in feed rollers...
--
Jerry O.

Maybe an extended feed table or standing feed rollers will minimize the problem.

How about an extended feed table supported by roller stand on the in and out
feed side? That's what I've been using.


If your board has a twist or bow, as mentioned in another part of this
thread, a 100' long in feed and out feed will be of no help to
straighten/flatten the work. The work has to be supported where the
board bows up or twists up. I use small wedges between the
twisted/bowed work and a sled longer than the work.

Yes, I know that. I was simply responding to Micheal's comment about an
extended table by noting that I am already using one. While it, by itself,
does nothing to flatten the board, it does provide support for the sled.
When using a 6' sled and 8/4 boards like I am, it's nice to have a few feet
of solid support before and after the planer instead of relying on the
relatively short planer infeed and outfeed tables.

As shown below, I am using an extended table for support and a sled for the
actually flattening process. The only thing not shown in the image is the
shims/wedges. Rest assured that I am shimming the boards solid to prevent
rocking and flexing. The image is just an example of the set-up in response
to dpb's request to see it.

https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg


The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
through the planer.

Agreed. But is it possible that they could *screw up* the flattening if they
were misaligned or applying uneven pressure?

That is basically been the question that I have been trying to get an
answer to.

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:04:19 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/31/2019 6:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/31/2019 4:14 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

If I've missed anything or if you have any other questions about the set-up
or my technique, just let me know.


https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg

In bulk, that's a reasonable-looking approach.

What we don't see, however, is the actual setup when trying to do a
planing pass.

Other than me feeding the sled in and retrieving it on the way out, what aren't
you seeing? Should I post a link to a video? ;-)

Something's moving but we've no way to tell what from static picture so
that _might_ be of some help, yes. Of course, from afar, it might not
be, either; no way to predict, really.

Unfortunately, the provisions of my WITSEC arrangement prevent me from
posting pictures or videos of myself online. ;-)



That's the setup. What do you think is missing? Is it just the shims? If you
want me to insert shims and then take the picture again, I can, but I kind of
think that that would be a waste of time. On the twisted boards that I'm
actually trying to flatten, I am shimming the gaps both to eliminate any
rocking and fill them in to prevent flex.

I don't think it would be a waste of time, no. Seeing just how you
shimmed it and what's holding what how could be a klew...then again, as
above, from afar, "maybe not!" but you've not found it so far on your
own, so what can it hurt?

As I'm sure you know, every board has a different twist, warp or bow, so
showing you how I would shim the board in the image might satisfy that
situation, but none other.

In this case, I would clamp the front of the board to the infeed end of
the sled and use increasing thinner shims, starting at the highest point
of the trailing end, filling in all gaps on all sides. The shims would be
held in place with either hot glue or double sided tape. Once shimmed, I
would remove the clamp and check for any rocking, flexing or sliding.

Again, as I'm sure you know, there are many youtube's showing the flattening
process, including the shimming part. I'm doing what they are doing.



You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is 0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.

The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".

As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
than 2'.

In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.

That tells me _something_ pretty major is happening that last foot,
then, and the video _might_ show it. I'm still curious about just what
the real stiffness of the machine itself is...I'll admit I've never used
one of the lunchbox planers "in anger" so I really don't have anything
to compare to but heavy iron but I've looked at various models in the
stores and they just look too flimsy for real work to me. I'm
suspicious something in the planer itself is giving with an irregular
geometry.


I'm with you on that suspicion.

OK, thanks for hanging in here as long as you have. I'm going to give this
a rest for a while. I have enough flattened and thickness-planned boards to
actually start building the bench for my daughter. All twisted boards were
cut 10 - 12" inches longer than needed just to be safe, so lopping off the
thinner end is not an issue - for this project, at least. I wouldn't try
this with an expensive/limited amount piece of wood until a solution is
found, but for now it's time to get building.

Thanks again.

DerbyDad03 writes:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:31:32 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:

As shown below, I am using an extended table for support and a sled for the
actually flattening process. The only thing not shown in the image is the
shims/wedges. Rest assured that I am shimming the boards solid to prevent
rocking and flexing. The image is just an example of the set-up in response
to dpb's request to see it.

https://i.imgur.com/fSSwztH.jpg


The in feed and out feed rollers are not intended to flatten a board
into submission nor are they in any way instrumental in flattening a
warped/twisted, or bowed board. They simply push or pull the work
through the planer.

Agreed. But is it possible that they could *screw up* the flattening if they
were misaligned or applying uneven pressure?

That is basically been the question that I have been trying to get an
answer to.

If the cutter knives are coplanar to the table, misaligned infeed/outfeed
rollers should have no effect on the cut; assuming the stock can't shift
on the carrier board during the pass.

I'm not familiar with the Wen brand, so can't offer much else.

On 2/1/2019 10:55 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:04:19 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 1/31/2019 6:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

Again, as I'm sure you know, there are many youtube's showing the flattening
process, including the shimming part. I'm doing what they are doing.

In particular, I was wondering how you hold the work relatively to the
shim---are you hot-gluing both sides of the shims? And, I was also just
curious to see how many you thought were enough and to to see an actual
attempt setup instead of just having it described...like coding errors,
"don't tell us what you think the error is/means, _show_ us the code and
the actual error in context".


You don't give any measurements but if I just guesstimate that the
difference is as much as 1/32" over the last 3-ft of the material then
the angle is 0.05 deg from true straight edge. I don't think there's
any way you can measure anything close to that precision with the angle
gauge you've shown nor can be totally assured you don't have that much
flex in the setup shown in a combination of all the places there's room
for any movement whatsoever.

The board being planed is 70". The sled is 72".

As I mentioned, the gap shown in the image is exaggerated because of other
things I did to it. Even then, the exaggerated gap in the image is less
than 2'.

In practice, after planing the board with the sled, the gap is more like
1/32" over 6, maybe 8". Since I am supporting/lifting the sled on the
outfeed end well before the last foot or so goes under planer, I really
don't think the sled is drooping. If anything, since I'm lifting the sled,
I would expect the trailing end to be thicker, not thinner.

That tells me _something_ pretty major is happening that last foot,
then, and the video _might_ show it. I'm still curious about just what
the real stiffness of the machine itself is...I'll admit I've never used
one of the lunchbox planers "in anger" so I really don't have anything
to compare to but heavy iron but I've looked at various models in the
stores and they just look too flimsy for real work to me. I'm
suspicious something in the planer itself is giving with an irregular
geometry.


I'm with you on that suspicion.

OK, thanks for hanging in here as long as you have. I'm going to give this
a rest for a while. I have enough flattened and thickness-planned boards to
actually start building the bench for my daughter. All twisted boards were
cut 10 - 12" inches longer than needed just to be safe, so lopping off the
thinner end is not an issue - for this project, at least. I wouldn't try
this with an expensive/limited amount piece of wood until a solution is
found, but for now it's time to get building.


That's actually a suggestion I had intended to make; glad you did so and
thereby got the material needed.

I've done it in the past on the rare occasion, but it's always been much
more rigid material than poplar and my "sled" boards were also like 8-
or 10/4 oak/maple as I have planers with 6" or 8" throats so the base
was much stouter.

I did it by either applying a laminate or taking another piece of
melamine-faced ply to the sled and then just used a thinner sled to hold
the work and let the planer do the work to pull it thru on the base
rather than having a mobile sled as the whole arrangement. Then I
didn't have to worry about propping up the outfeed other than just
support the base boards as it was fixed in place--a replacement table
entirely, iow.

That's why I said that in general I didn't find it worth the trouble!

--