I'm designing and building an entertainment center out of red oak. I
plan to use frame/pannel contstruction for both the carcass and doors.
Is there any reason why I should not use oak plywood for the panels?
This will be mission style, and the panels will not be raised. I was
planing on using 1/4 oak ply.
-What will be the actual thickness of 1/4" oak ply? (3/16ths?) will
that be too thin? Should I try to get 3/8ths?
Thanks for any tips.

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm designing and building an entertainment center out of red oak. I
plan to use frame/pannel contstruction for both the carcass and doors.
Is there any reason why I should not use oak plywood for the panels?

No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The panels should
float and be non load supporting.


This will be mission style, and the panels will not be raised. I was
planing on using 1/4 oak ply.
-What will be the actual thickness of 1/4" oak ply? (3/16ths?) will
that be too thin?

Actually about 7/64" thick and not too thin as long as the panel is not
needed for strength.


Should I try to get 3/8ths?

I do not think you will find Oak veneer that thickness.

Thanks for any tips.

On 20 Jan 2005 14:53:17 -0800, "Doug" wrote:

I'm designing and building an entertainment center out of red oak. I
plan to use frame/pannel contstruction for both the carcass and doors.
Is there any reason why I should not use oak plywood for the panels?
This will be mission style, and the panels will not be raised. I was
planing on using 1/4 oak ply.
-What will be the actual thickness of 1/4" oak ply? (3/16ths?) will
that be too thin? Should I try to get 3/8ths?
Thanks for any tips.


The 1/4" ply will be fine but will net out to be a little less thick
that 1/4", so make sure you have your stock before machining your
ploughs.

Also, be aware that the face veneer of hardwood plywood comes in many
grades and cuts.

I would look for a Flatsawn veneer, rather than the Radial cut that is
too often found in home centers. The flatsawn will give you the
appearance of solid stock.

You must also decide if the appearance of the inside of your doors is
important enough to buy a ply with two high grade faces.

If the doors will be open much of the time you may want to use A/A ply
- that is ply that has two top grade faces. You would not be too bad
off with A/1, or even some instances of A/2.

HTH

Tom.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The panels should
float and be non load supporting.


Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The
panels should
float and be non load supporting.


Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking the question. I didn't think there
would be an objection, but I thought I'd make sure. I didn't want to
have to glue up panels of 1/4 thickness, that didn't seem like too much
fun!

Thanks for the replies




tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On 20 Jan 2005 16:06:54 -0800, "Doug" wrote:


Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The
panels should
float and be non load supporting.


Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking the question. I didn't think there
would be an objection, but I thought I'd make sure. I didn't want to
have to glue up panels of 1/4 thickness, that didn't seem like too much
fun!

Thanks for the replies

Not only is there not an objection but, contrary to the previous
poster's assertion, there is a positive benefit to gluing a plywood
panel into a solid frame. It unifies the assembly and makes it much
more capable of resisting deformation - which is the key to strength.


tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom Watson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The
panels should
float and be non load supporting.


Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking the question. I didn't think there
would be an objection, but I thought I'd make sure. I didn't want to
have to glue up panels of 1/4 thickness, that didn't seem like too much
fun!

Actually never mind, I was thinking solid wood panel vs. plywood. Solid
wood will expand and contract and needs to float so that it will not pop
open a frame joint as it expands or split itself as it contracts. The
plywood panel should do fine glued in. Sorry for my confusion.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm designing and building an entertainment center out of red oak. I
plan to use frame/pannel contstruction for both the carcass and doors.
Is there any reason why I should not use oak plywood for the panels?

No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The panels should
float and be non load supporting.


This will be mission style, and the panels will not be raised. I was
planing on using 1/4 oak ply.
-What will be the actual thickness of 1/4" oak ply? (3/16ths?) will
that be too thin?

Actually about 7/64" thick and not too thin as long as the panel is not
needed for strength.

That's less than 1/8". Are things that bad? Did you mean 7/32"? -- Igor

On 20 Jan 2005 14:53:17 -0800, "Doug" wrote:

I'm designing and building an entertainment center out of red oak. I
plan to use frame/pannel contstruction for both the carcass and doors.
Is there any reason why I should not use oak plywood for the panels?
This will be mission style, and the panels will not be raised. I was
planing on using 1/4 oak ply.
-What will be the actual thickness of 1/4" oak ply? (3/16ths?) will
that be too thin? Should I try to get 3/8ths?
Thanks for any tips.

For non-load bearing, like door panels, you might use 1/4" [but I'd do
raised wood panels for that, or at least add some sort of design for
appearance.] For load bearing, I'd go to 1/2". Personally though I'd
use at least 1/2" all round.

OK, now I'm getting a bit confused. I understand that plywood is
dimensionally more stable than hardwood glue ups, but so stable that
you could actually glue it right into a frame? i.e. there would be no
seasonal movement at all?? IT doesn't need to "float" at all? (Do I
sound incredulous?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:01:18 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?

Because there's no point to doing it. It _shouldn't_ hurt, from a
moisture movement point of view, but equally there's no positive
reason to do it. A Mission style piece should be plenty strong enough
just on the M&T's of the frame.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:21:23 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:01:18 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?

Because there's no point to doing it. It _shouldn't_ hurt, from a
moisture movement point of view, but equally there's no positive
reason to do it. A Mission style piece should be plenty strong enough
just on the M&T's of the frame.


Can't agree with that, Andy.

The lateral strength that is introduced to the assembly by the glued
in ply is a great benefit.

In a perfect world, all four feet hit the floor with equal force. In
the odd instance of the imperfect world, these feet hit with varying
force, which works on the frames over time.

The amount of glued area that is introduced to the frame and panel
assembly by gluing in the ply panel is tremendous, when compared to
the glued area of the joint faces.

As the strength of the assembly is aided by the glued area, giving
away the potential strength of the frame to panel glue line would be
reprehensible.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

"igor" wrote in message
...
Actually about 7/64" thick and not too thin as long as the panel is not
needed for strength.

That's less than 1/8". Are things that bad? Did you mean 7/32"? -- Igor

YES... And please disregard EVERYTHING that I have had to say on this
thread... Damn...

On 20 Jan 2005 17:10:12 -0800, "Doug" wrote:

OK, now I'm getting a bit confused. I understand that plywood is
dimensionally more stable than hardwood glue ups, but so stable that
you could actually glue it right into a frame? i.e. there would be no
seasonal movement at all?? IT doesn't need to "float" at all? (Do I
sound incredulous?)


yup.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On 20 Jan 2005 14:53:17 -0800, "Doug" wrote:

I'm designing and building an entertainment center out of red oak. I
plan to use frame/pannel contstruction for both the carcass and doors.
Is there any reason why I should not use oak plywood for the panels?
This will be mission style, and the panels will not be raised. I was
planing on using 1/4 oak ply.
-What will be the actual thickness of 1/4" oak ply? (3/16ths?) will
that be too thin? Should I try to get 3/8ths?
Thanks for any tips.


The panels can be 1/4" thick as they don't have much effect on the
structural strength. Ply thickness can vary, so you'll have to get
the ply before cutting the grooves.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:01:18 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The panels should
float and be non load supporting.


Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?



I'm sure nobody will object, but understanding wood movement is very
important. Gluing the panels will cause stress with changes in
humidity. Stain and finish the panels before assembly.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:12:49 GMT, Phisherman wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:01:18 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


No, that is acceptable as long as your frames are strong. The panels should
float and be non load supporting.


Why would you object to gluing ply panels into the frame?



I'm sure nobody will object, but understanding wood movement is very
important. Gluing the panels will cause stress with changes in
humidity.

No.

Stain and finish the panels before assembly.

No.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:16:37 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:



Stain and finish the panels before assembly.

No.

Here is where I would disagree with you. At least for the staining, and
especially if the panel is _not_ glued. Too many times I have seen cabinet
doors in which the panel - whether ply or not - has shifted and it exposes
an unfinished area. It would seem that there would be a concern that the
dados in the frame be large enough to hold the (thicker) finished panel,
but other than that what is the problem - that the glue (which you
recommend) won't hold? I agree with you that gluing ply panels can be OK
and enhance the door's integrity. But is that essential? To the extent
that gluing-in a ply panel is helpful, is it so critical that having finish
on some of the surface will substantially lessen the (potential)
enhancement?

You may say that a glued-in ply panel _won't_ shift so pre-finishing is not
needed. Maybe.

Personally, I do not want any unfinished panel areas to show and so at
least staining the panel before assembly seems like a good idea. FWIW. --
Igor

Good Grief! We should rename this forum, Myth Busters. I would bet that
until now most on this forum ( including me) would of insisted upon
letting them float. Cheers, JG

Tom Watson wrote:

On 20 Jan 2005 17:10:12 -0800, "Doug" wrote:

OK, now I'm getting a bit confused. I understand that plywood is
dimensionally more stable than hardwood glue ups, but so stable that
you could actually glue it right into a frame? i.e. there would be no
seasonal movement at all?? IT doesn't need to "float" at all? (Do I
sound incredulous?)

yup.

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:22:03 GMT, igor wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:16:37 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:



Stain and finish the panels before assembly.

No.

Here is where I would disagree with you. At least for the staining, and
especially if the panel is _not_ glued.

We are talking specifically about a glued in plywood panel.

Too many times I have seen cabinet
doors in which the panel - whether ply or not - has shifted and it exposes
an unfinished area.

Not a problem with a glued in panel.

It would seem that there would be a concern that the
dados in the frame be large enough to hold the (thicker) finished panel,
but other than that what is the problem - that the glue (which you
recommend) won't hold? I agree with you that gluing ply panels can be OK
and enhance the door's integrity. But is that essential? To the extent
that gluing-in a ply panel is helpful, is it so critical that having finish
on some of the surface will substantially lessen the (potential)
enhancement?

This has been explained elsewhere in the thread.

You may say that a glued-in ply panel _won't_ shift so pre-finishing is not
needed. Maybe.

The glued in panel will not shift. Not maybe. Absolutely.

Personally, I do not want any unfinished panel areas to show and so at
least staining the panel before assembly seems like a good idea. FWIW. --
Igor

If you would apply your logic, you might as well prefinish the working
faces of your mortise and tenon joinery.




tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

Keep in mind that it's sometimes difficult to find 1/4" plywood that
has a good oak side on both sides (as most of the times, it's used for
the backs, so only one good side shows). You'll see both sides in your
plans (I'm guessing).

Wood Magazine had an article this past year with plans for something
similiar (an entertainment center with 1/4 plywood panels in frames).
Theirs was cherry, but obviously you could make it oak.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:31:31 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:22:03 GMT, igor wrote:


Personally, I do not want any unfinished panel areas to show and so at
least staining the panel before assembly seems like a good idea. FWIW. --
Igor

If you would apply your logic, you might as well prefinish the working
faces of your mortise and tenon joinery.


I admire your woodworking but not your analysis of my logic. NB: You get
paid for woodworking and I get paid for logic. -- Igor

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:20:56 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:31:31 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:22:03 GMT, igor wrote:


Personally, I do not want any unfinished panel areas to show and so at
least staining the panel before assembly seems like a good idea. FWIW. --
Igor

If you would apply your logic, you might as well prefinish the working
faces of your mortise and tenon joinery.


I admire your woodworking but not your analysis of my logic. NB: You get
paid for woodworking and I get paid for logic. -- Igor


NB: Masters in Philosophy, concentration in Logic.



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:43:48 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:20:56 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:31:31 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:22:03 GMT, igor wrote:


Personally, I do not want any unfinished panel areas to show and so at
least staining the panel before assembly seems like a good idea. FWIW. --
Igor

If you would apply your logic, you might as well prefinish the working
faces of your mortise and tenon joinery.


I admire your woodworking but not your analysis of my logic. NB: You get
paid for woodworking and I get paid for logic. -- Igor


NB: Masters in Philosophy, concentration in Logic.

As I said, I get paid for mine - market tested, just as is your
woodworking.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:56:46 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:43:48 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:20:56 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:31:31 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:22:03 GMT, igor wrote:


Personally, I do not want any unfinished panel areas to show and so at
least staining the panel before assembly seems like a good idea. FWIW. --
Igor

If you would apply your logic, you might as well prefinish the working
faces of your mortise and tenon joinery.


I admire your woodworking but not your analysis of my logic. NB: You get
paid for woodworking and I get paid for logic. -- Igor


NB: Masters in Philosophy, concentration in Logic.

As I said, I get paid for mine - market tested, just as is your
woodworking.


So, let me get this straight.

You want me to give you credit for having greater logic, because you
get paid for it but you are arguing a woodworking point with me, who
gets paid for woodworking and, by the same reasoning, you really
should just be saying, "well, the guy gets paid for it, so he must be
right".

watson - who likes all sorts of silliness, but especially infinite
reductions...



tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:31:40 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:


So, let me get this straight.

You want me to give you credit for having greater logic, because you
get paid for it but you are arguing a woodworking point with me, who
gets paid for woodworking and, by the same reasoning, you really
should just be saying, "well, the guy gets paid for it, so he must be
right".

Well, yes.*

(* - I drew the line when you commented on my logic qua logic, extending
it: "If you would apply your logic ...".)

watson - who likes all sorts of silliness, but especially infinite
reductions...


Thanks for the dance. -- Igor

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:21:55 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:31:40 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:


So, let me get this straight.

You want me to give you credit for having greater logic, because you
get paid for it but you are arguing a woodworking point with me, who
gets paid for woodworking and, by the same reasoning, you really
should just be saying, "well, the guy gets paid for it, so he must be
right".

Well, yes.*

(* - I drew the line when you commented on my logic qua logic, extending
it: "If you would apply your logic ...".)

Sorry, I meant to say, "If we would apply...", thus impugning the
argument, rather than the arguer.

watson - who likes all sorts of silliness, but especially infinite
reductions...


Thanks for the dance. -- Igor

Shazzam, Igor - we hardly got our shoes warm

Have a good one.




tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)