Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

I thought a thicknesser was a sandpaper based tool that took off 1/32"
or so at a time while a planer was more for turning rough or too thick
stock into a finished board, 1/8" at a time using rotating knives. The
former did finished work while the latter's output needed sanding to
finish it. It looks like they both mean a planer though, at least in
the UK. Good question, sorry I couldn't help.

Jim

In article , Alan Penn wrote:
Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

If I have the terminology right, what you call a planer we call a jointer, and
what we call a planer you call a thicknesser. Sometimes we call it a thickness
planer.

If I don't have that right, ignore the rest of this post. :-)

Being from the US, I'm going to use US terminology to avoid confusing myself.
I hope I don't confuse you in the process.

If you Google this newsgroup on "jointer planer" you'll find a lot of
discussions about this.

IMO the bottom line is that the two machines work very well in tandem, but
neither one is especially useful by itself. A jointer makes faces and edges
straight and flat, but it cannot make opposite faces parallel. A thickness
planer OTOH exists for making opposite faces parallel, but it can't make them
straight and flat without the construction and use of additional equipment
(Google on "planer sled" for more info), and it can't make edges straight at
all. So it's better to have both. Look for used equipment if your budget
doesn't permit you to buy new copies of both; you can probably get a used
jointer and planer for less than you'd pay for a new jointer. If shop space is
the constraint, instead of budget, get mobile bases for both of them, so you
can roll them out of the way when not needed. But find a way to get both.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Alan Penn" wrote in message
...
Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

If you buy your timber thicknessed, the planer (jointer) will clean up
sawblade artifact and make the edge square to the face. You can also
thickness boards narrower than the blade width with some care.

If you buy your timber rough, or work in many thicknesses, you need both.

Alan Penn wrote:
Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one
would
you choose?

Regards Alan



Alan,

I buy my wood planed to thickness, so my first purchase will be a
jointer. With some advanced planning, I can buy all of the stock for a
given project, even if it requires many thicknesses.

Curt Blood,
Amateur Furniture Builder

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Alan Penn
wrote:

Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

That would depend what I want to use it for.

I have both - ie they're separate machines, not a combined Euro-style
machine. The thicknesser is rarely used, the jointer (a planer with a
vertical fence) is used regularly. However when I _do_ get the
thicknesser out, it's usually to use it solid for a couple of 8 hour
days. The jointer typically makes one cut, then the covers go back on.

The thicknesser is one of the most cost effective machines I've ever
bought - because of the huge amount of cheap unplaned timber I've put
through it and turned into valuable surfaced and thicknessed timber.
It paid for itself in the first month I had it.

The jointer could be replaced by a good workbench and a couple of hand
planes. Sometimes it is.

You don't need a wide planer - the thicknesser will prepare both sides
of a board and produce flat timber.

As to the "Euro question", then I have separate machines because they
cost me about the same, lost the wide surface planing I've never
needed, but gave me thicknessing for 12" boards (combination planers
are either 10" maximum, or very expensive)

If you have a thicknesser, then you;ll be needing a chip collector
too. The jointer just has a box underneath its spout.

In article .com, "dustyone" wrote:

I buy my wood planed to thickness, so my first purchase will be a
jointer. With some advanced planning, I can buy all of the stock for a
given project, even if it requires many thicknesses.

To properly surface stock, it must be both jointed *and* planed - in that
order. You're setting yourself up for problems if you buy lumber already
thicknessed, then joint it, but don't have it thickness-planed again *after*
jointing.

Here's the reason: thickness-planed = opposite faces parallel (board is the
same thickness everywhere). Jointed = one face made straight and flat.
Result: opposite face is no longer parallel to the jointed face, and the board
needs to be thickness-planed again if you want it to be the same thickness
everywhere.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Alan Penn" wrote in message
...
Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

Opinion # 487

I would get the Thicknesser. I have had a jointer/planer for 22 years, a
thicknesser/planer for 16. I am seriously thinking of getting rid of the
jointer/planer.

To qualify my decision, space is a premium for me, I do this to make money,
and I seldom buy rough cut lumber. Most of my lumber is s3s and has one
straight edge to start with with. Both top and bottom are surfaced to
almost the thickness that I want. I inspect my lumber before buying and do
not buy twisted boards. And, because I this is a business for me, it is
cheaper for me in many instances to buy s4s lumber rather than take the time
my self to prep all the wood. I never thought I would say that but culling
through lumber piles to get s2s or s3s boards of the right dimensions is
part of the wood prep process IMHO. When buying s4s lumber, the width of
the lumber is predetermined and consistent. Thickness/planing is basically
eliminated unless I need thinner stock.
A board that may not have a straight edge, s2s can be straightened with a
simple jig on the TS and probably more quickly than on a jointer/planer.
If a rough cut board is flat, it can be successfully thicknessed with top
and bottom parallel using a thickneser/planer.

If the two surfaces are planed and parallel to each other, making an
edge perpendicular to one face also makes it perpendicular to the
other...

Simply jointing the edge will not change the relationshiop of the to
faces to each other...if one corner angle is less than 90, the other
face/corner angle will be the complementary angle.

Ergo, if one buys surfaced material of the desired thickness, one can
more easily do w/o the planer (thicknesser) than the jointer.

Alan Penn wrote:

Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

This will (undoubtedly) be a nearly interminable thread, but ....

Depends a lot on what you have available or want to use as starting
stock.

If you want to buy rough lumber, you'll find both almost indispensable.
If you can get a good supply of S2S material, you can do a lot w/o the
thicknesser, but virtually all joinery starts w/ a straight edge square
to the surface. Thus I would recommend the jointer/planer first in that
case.

To add to my reasoning, in most US cities it is possible to find either
vo-tech schools or small cabinet shops where one can either enroll for
minimal cost or pay a small price and get lumber surfaced, thus
minimizing the need for a thicknesser/planer until one gets to the point
of doing a significant amount of work.

Of course, all operations can be done w/ hand tools and one should
learn to do so simply as a matter of course, but unless one is into pure
reproduction there's no reason imo not to use machines where
appropriate.

HTH...and, of course, IMO, YMMV, $0.02 (US), etc., ...

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Duane Bozarth
wrote:

If the two surfaces are planed and parallel to each other, making an
edge perpendicular to one face also makes it perpendicular to the
other...

Only in geometry - this is woodworking.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Duane Bozarth
wrote:

If the two surfaces are planed and parallel to each other, making an
edge perpendicular to one face also makes it perpendicular to the
other...

Only in geometry - this is woodworking.

Funny and true. :-)

Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced stock is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.

-Steve

Andy Dingley wrote:

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Duane Bozarth
wrote:

If the two surfaces are planed and parallel to each other, making an
edge perpendicular to one face also makes it perpendicular to the
other...

Only in geometry - this is woodworking.

If the two surfaces are initially parallel, having gone through a
properly set thickness planer, working on the edges doesn't change that.

If there's twist and one resurfaces one surface, then it's true one will
have destroyed the symmetry, but that's a different operation.

"Alan Penn" wrote in message
...
Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

I think it mostly has to do with a few factors. What kind of projects to
you like to build? What other machines do you have? How is the lumber you
typically buy sold?

I would not give either one up - however, if forced I'd ditch the jointer
and use a hand plane.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Stephen M wrote:
....
Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced stock is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.

But that's a different operation (resurfacing)...if the two surfaces are
parallel, they'll remain so within the differential expansion of one
portion of the same board wrt to another which is going to be quite
small...

In article , wrote:
Stephen M wrote:
....
Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced stock is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.

But that's a different operation (resurfacing)...if the two surfaces are
parallel, they'll remain so within the differential expansion of one
portion of the same board wrt to another which is going to be quite
small...

It's true that once made parallel, they will remain parallel. But if the stock
was milled in someone else's shop, once it acclimates to the temperature and
humidity conditions in *your* shop, it may no longer be straight and flat.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article , wrote:

If there's twist and one resurfaces one surface, then it's true one will
have destroyed the symmetry

Exactly. And that's why face jointing must precede planing.

but that's a different operation.

Yep. That's the operation that should be done *first*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Stephen M wrote:
...
Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced stock
is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat
when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.

But that's a different operation (resurfacing)...

No. I was really referring to edge jointing

I was trying to dispell the myth that is you bring home S2S stock and then
joint one edge that you end up with straight and square stock. It will
probably be pretty good most of the time, but occaisionally not so great,
depending upon the stock, the time between initial milling and subsequent
milling and the change in relative humidity.


if the two surfaces are
parallel, they'll remain so within the differential expansion of one
portion of the same board wrt to another which is going to be quite
small...

True, but not what I was talking about.

Stephen M wrote:
....
True, but not what I was talking about.

OK, then I misunderstood the point you were trying to make...sorry.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
Stephen M wrote:
....
Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced
stock is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat
when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.

But that's a different operation (resurfacing)...if the two surfaces are
parallel, they'll remain so within the differential expansion of one
portion of the same board wrt to another which is going to be quite
small...

It's true that once made parallel, they will remain parallel. But if the
stock
was milled in someone else's shop, once it acclimates to the temperature
and
humidity conditions in *your* shop, it may no longer be straight and flat.


RH difference is it. Temperature pretty much a non-player. But why are you
preaching heresy? We _all_ know that kiln-dried wood remains the same
forever....

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , wrote:

If there's twist and one resurfaces one surface, then it's true one will
have destroyed the symmetry

Exactly. And that's why face jointing must precede planing.

but that's a different operation.

Yep. That's the operation that should be done *first*.

Yes. I saw your other post and gather I misinterpreted your initial
point...

In this case, all I was trying to do was to clarify that once the other
operation was done, it was done--unless, of course, the stock does move
significantly enough afterwards to destroy the previous work...

So, I guess the upshot is we're both right and have probably totally
p-o'ed the OP...

I'd go for a planer/thicknesser....

you'll need both in the end and if you scout round you'll (with time) find
one at the right price. I have a 12X4 PT and am now looking round for a
12X7 or 8. My workshop is small else I'd be looking for a 24X8

cheers

Nicholas
--
Nicholas Buttle - Quality Joinery and Cabinet Making
http://www.nbjoinery.net


--


"Teamcasa" wrote in message
...

"Alan Penn" wrote in message
...
Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

I think it mostly has to do with a few factors. What kind of projects to
you like to build? What other machines do you have? How is the lumber
you typically buy sold?

I would not give either one up - however, if forced I'd ditch the jointer
and use a hand plane.

Dave


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Stephen M wrote:
...

Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced stock is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.


But that's a different operation (resurfacing)...if the two surfaces are
parallel, they'll remain so within the differential expansion of one
portion of the same board wrt to another which is going to be quite
small...

Not in Arizona.
Given the radical changes in humidity between here and where that stock
was originally thicknessed, it has a nasty tendency to bow, warp, cup, etc.

You can work around this, but you need to choose your wood carefully if
you don't have a planer.

--RC

Rick Cook wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Stephen M wrote:
...

Hidden in all of that is the false assumption that the presurfaced stock is
actuallly flat and straight when you buy it. It's probably pretty flat when
they mill it, but it probably has plenty opportunity to "move" after
milling. By definition, you de not get to acclimate your stock before
milling, because it's milled in someone else's shop.


But that's a different operation (resurfacing)...if the two surfaces are
parallel, they'll remain so within the differential expansion of one
portion of the same board wrt to another which is going to be quite
small...

Not in Arizona.
Given the radical changes in humidity between here and where that stock
was originally thicknessed, it has a nasty tendency to bow, warp, cup, etc.

You can work around this, but you need to choose your wood carefully if
you don't have a planer.

I still say the two surfaces will be (essentially) parallel to each
other...

They may not still lie in a flat plane, but that's a different issue as
I've noted before. In that circumstance certainly one would have to
resurface and all that--I never claimed otherwise.

In article . net, Rick Cook wrote:

Not in Arizona.
Given the radical changes in humidity between here and where that stock
was originally thicknessed, it has a nasty tendency to bow, warp, cup, etc.

You don't have to be in Arizona for that to be a problem. Right here in
central Indiana, for instance - where we have a pretty considerable difference
in humidity between winter and summer. If I buy wood in the summer, and bring
it from a non-climate-controlled lumber warehouse to my air-conditioned home,
I want to let it sit at least a week before I try to mill it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Alan Penn wrote in
:

Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

Well, really you need both. But if I could only choose one, I'd vote for
the thicknesser. That's because in my opinion it's less work to joint
(plane) by hand than it is to thickness by hand. Doubtless other opinions
will differ ... I'm just stating my own.

Alan Penn wrote:

Hope those in the US can translate the terminology.
Question: If you could only have one of these machines which one would
you choose?

Regards Alan

First of all, I have to say that you folks on the right side of the
pond got the naming right on these machines.

What we Americans call a jointer will prepare an edge for jointing,
but that is a special case of what it does, which is to surface one
edge or face of a board to a single plane -- so planer seems the
logical name (as does the analogy to a hand plane)

What we call a planer does not put any surface into a plane, except by
the happy coincidence that the opposite surface is already in a single
plane. But it does create boards of uniform thickness -- which is
probably why you silly Brits call it a thicknesser.

Now if you guys would get rid of all those silly extra vowels, you
would probably have "our" language down right! g

And finally to your question -- I'd choose the thicknesser if I could
only have one. It can be jury-rigged to create a plane surface. Also,
the function of a planer (jointer US) is much easier to accomplish
with hand tools than is that of a thicknesser.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Tue, Mar 8, 2005, 12:31pm (EST+5)
(Andy=A0Dingley) says:
snip The jointer could be replaced by a good workbench and a couple of
hand planes. Sometimes it is. snip

I've got just the planer (thicknesser). When I need a jointer
(planer), I run the wood thru the planer using a planer sled. A bit of
a PITA, but works well. If you go with one, I'd say the planer
(thicknesser), with a planer sled.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

It was somewhere outside Barstow when (J T)
wrote:

I've got just the planer (thicknesser). When I need a jointer
(planer), I run the wood thru the planer using a planer sled.

I do much the same for first passes on timber, although I don't bother
with the sled.

You can prepare S2S stock with a thicknesser alone. If it's too
twisted a board for this to work, then it's too twisted to trust it to
stay reliably stable. Sometimes I need to use an electric planer to
knock the high spots down by hand before feeding it, but that's just a
coarse process and doesn't take long.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
I still say the two surfaces will be (essentially) parallel to each
other...

They may not still lie in a flat plane, but that's a different issue as
I've noted before. In that circumstance certainly one would have to
resurface and all that--I never claimed otherwise.

Sorry, but rethink the quartersawn board.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp...tr113/ch03.pdf Fig. 3-3 for
a view.

What Alexy said... but let me add one more thing:

IMNSHO nothing looks more dopey and amaturish than 3/4" drawer sides
(DAMHIKT). I'm not just talking about drawer sides but that's a good
example. From a design/style perspective, limiting yourself to stock
thicknesses generally leads to unattractive proportions.

Sure, you can produce attractive designs with stock thicknesses, but I
think that is a really big limitation that more often than not leads people
to make poor aesthetic design decisions based on "it's what I have".

-s



First of all, I have to say that you folks on the right side of the
pond got the naming right on these machines.

What we Americans call a jointer will prepare an edge for jointing,
but that is a special case of what it does, which is to surface one
edge or face of a board to a single plane -- so planer seems the
logical name (as does the analogy to a hand plane)

What we call a planer does not put any surface into a plane, except by
the happy coincidence that the opposite surface is already in a single
plane. But it does create boards of uniform thickness -- which is
probably why you silly Brits call it a thicknesser.

Now if you guys would get rid of all those silly extra vowels, you
would probably have "our" language down right! g

And finally to your question -- I'd choose the thicknesser if I could
only have one. It can be jury-rigged to create a plane surface. Also,
the function of a planer (jointer US) is much easier to accomplish
with hand tools than is that of a thicknesser.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

Andy, JT,

Regarding preparing stock w/ thickness planer alone:

I'm familiar w/ the planer sled approach (FWW #175), but talk a bit
more about going without the sled on stock that is not face-jointed,
please.

I ask because I'm going the "planer(US) only" route right now; edge
jointing will be either a router or TS operation; but I'd been assuming
I had to "face joint" w/ the sled before thicknessing.

Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?

Thanks,
Chris


Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when (J T)
wrote:

I've got just the planer (thicknesser). When I need a jointer
(planer), I run the wood thru the planer using a planer sled.

I do much the same for first passes on timber, although I don't
bother
with the sled.

You can prepare S2S stock with a thicknesser alone. If it's too
twisted a board for this to work, then it's too twisted to trust it
to
stay reliably stable. Sometimes I need to use an electric planer to
knock the high spots down by hand before feeding it, but that's just
a
coarse process and doesn't take long.

On 9 Mar 2005 12:41:29 -0800, "TheNewGuy"
wrote:

Andy, JT,

Regarding preparing stock w/ thickness planer alone:

I'm familiar w/ the planer sled approach (FWW #175), but talk a bit
more about going without the sled on stock that is not face-jointed,
please.

I ask because I'm going the "planer(US) only" route right now; edge
jointing will be either a router or TS operation; but I'd been assuming
I had to "face joint" w/ the sled before thicknessing.

Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?

Thanks,
Chris



if the cupped board has no twist or bow and is thick enough that the
feed rollers will not press out the cup, then in theory yes.

Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?


Absolutely. The rollers may compress the cup a little bit (such that it will
spring back) but you can mitigate that by flipping several times rather than
just flatten - flip - flatten.

Sleds really just needed to address bow/twist.

Steve

Wed, Mar 9, 2005, 12:41pm (EST-3)
(TheNewGuy) says he asks:
snip I ask because I'm going the "planer(US) only" route right now;
edge jointing will be either a router or TS operation; but I'd been
assuming I had to "face joint" w/ the sled before thicknessing.

I'm not sure I understand any question there, as phrased. Face
joint? With a sled? Had to?

Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?
snip

If you are pure of heart, and have faith, and send proper
sacrifices for the Woodworking Gods, you can do anything you put your
mind to. So, I would say yes, but I don't see doing it without using a
sled. I also think you'd wind up with a pretty thin board, and, quite
possibly, quite a bit shorter.

You'd probably be way further ahead listening to Andy, rather than
me. I tend to think about things like that, and, if they seem
reasonable, and just try it, usually I don't bother asking questions.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "TheNewGuy"
wrote:

Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?

Yes - but:

Don't try to take too much off at once. This increases the pressure
from the feed rollers and bends the board as it goes through - so it
emerges still with a cupped face.

It's not quick. It's usually quicker to knock off the worst of the
high spots with a hand-held powered planer beforehand (the only thing
I use one for)

You should try and even the board up before feeding it - lower the
high spots on each side, so that the board is level. If you feed it
through so that teh bulk of the timber is tilted, then you have to
remove even more stock before getting a useful board.

As for any board, bad cupping requires a lot of waste to be removed
before obtaining a flat board. It may be more efficient to rip it in
half first, providing two narrow, but thicker, boards.

Bad cupping usually represents a lot of stress in a board. Expect the
board to warp further as you remove this stress - take it halfway
down, leave it overnight, then go back to it.

You'll have a lot of trouble planing a warped and twisted board. Think
about cutting it smaller instead, or even putting it on the firewood
pile.

J T wrote:
Wed, Mar 9, 2005, 12:41pm (EST-3)
(TheNewGuy) says he asks:
snip I ask because I'm going the "planer(US) only" route right now;
edge jointing will be either a router or TS operation; but I'd been
assuming I had to "face joint" w/ the sled before thicknessing.

I'm not sure I understand any question there, as phrased. Face
joint? With a sled? Had to?

There wasn't a question, just stating what my assumption had been up
until Andy's post; that with ONLY a planer(US) at my disposal, I
thought the process would be "always" face joint one side of the stock
board using a sled arrangement; then thickness plane "as normal." I
inferred from Andy that SOME boards, depending on the character of
their unplanarness, could be stuck right-off into said thicknesser w/o
the sled operation.


Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel
faces?
snip

If you are pure of heart, and have faith, and send proper
sacrifices for the Woodworking Gods, you can do anything you put your
mind to. So, I would say yes, but I don't see doing it without using
a
sled. I also think you'd wind up with a pretty thin board, and,
quite
possibly, quite a bit shorter.

Sorry, that above question of mine should have ended with, "WITHOUT
using a sled to face-joint first."

Thanks,
Chris

Andy Dingley wrote:
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "TheNewGuy"
wrote:

Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel
faces?

Yes - but:

Don't try to take too much off at once. This increases the pressure
from the feed rollers and bends the board as it goes through - so it
emerges still with a cupped face.

OK, good point.

It's not quick. It's usually quicker to knock off the worst of the
high spots with a hand-held powered planer beforehand (the only thing
I use one for)

Don't have one of those, but I suppose I could shave a few passes w/ a
jack plane; few passes at the center of the convex side, few passes on
the edges of the concave side...

As for any board, bad cupping requires a lot of waste to be removed
before obtaining a flat board. It may be more efficient to rip it in
half first, providing two narrow, but thicker, boards.

Yup, I remember having this conversation in a different thread
Knowing the risks & precautions to take when ripping said board...

Bad cupping usually represents a lot of stress in a board. Expect the
board to warp further as you remove this stress - take it halfway
down, leave it overnight, then go back to it.

Again, good idea this newbie wouldn't have thought of.

You'll have a lot of trouble planing a warped and twisted board.
Think
about cutting it smaller instead, or even putting it on the firewood
pile.

At the very least, these types of boards I'd definitely work with the
planer sled to try to flatten a face; but yeah, at some point, very
quickly, there's not enough stock thickness to get to your final
thickness.

Thanks again,
Chris

Stephen M wrote:

Sleds really just needed to address bow/twist.


Thanks Steve, I'm getting the point now :^)

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "TheNewGuy"
wrote:

I inferred from Andy that SOME boards, depending on the character of
their unplanarness, could be stuck right-off into said thicknesser w/o
the sled operation.

I don't use a sled, because I manage without one, but if there are to
be "two camps" over this technique, then they would be the "use a
planer first" and "just do it in the thicknesser", rather than the
"sled" and "shove it in" schools.

The planer crowd argue that you can't make things flat with a
thicknesser. Thicknessers work from the "back surface", so their
flatness-making is somewhat indirect. In some cases (twist) it never
works.

The "just thickness it" approach is much the same whether you use a
sled or not. Now I don't, which means I put badly supported timber
into the thicknesser. This is a bad practice - it's prone to squashing
flat if I put excess pressure on, it reduces the gripping width under
the feed rollers and it's generally unpredictable. So be careful if
you do it and be gentle with your cuts.

In most cases you don't need the sled, even with quite severe cupping,
so long as it's symmetrical. In cases that are too bad to work
unsledded, then use the hand-held scrub plane to knock the outer high
spots down. You don't need to do the centre - that's a broad area, so
leave it to the broad cutters of the thicknesser. Those skinny high
spots though are quickly reduced and can save you a lot of time.

If you don't already have one, preparing rough timber should use a
scrub plane. You can make an effective one from your roughest Stanley
#4, a Stanley iron ground with a pronounced crown to the edge, and a
mouth that's wide open, even if this needs some filing. Use it
diagonally, because you aren't making long fluffy shavings anyway.


As to twisted timber, then this needs either a sled or an axe. I just
don't bother with it. Apart from larch, which always twists, then if I
find a twisted oak board then it's something I shouldn't have bothered
to saw in the first place. Good timber doesn't twist (apart from
larch) - if you have twisted stock, there's something funny happening.
It might well be reaction branch wood that's never going to be good
for much. Either saw out a usable and stable piece, or keep yourself
warm with it.