135 Degree worktop joint (external 45 degree)

My question is simple,
Are these types of joints possible using a standard (or even non standard) worktop jig ?
I basically have a 45 degree worktop joint in the corner where my cooker is but the cooker needs to be recessed against the wall and not inline with the rest of the kitche units.
So the worktop needs to be 135 degrees to the first peice, then the peice over the cooker needs to be 90 degrees to that making it 45 degrees to the straight peice but slightly recessed. (and the same on the other side)
Cheers - James
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27 Jan 2004 09:14:54 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (James Simpson) wrote:

It should be, but I am not sure that I am completely clear on what you want to achieve.
Could you possibly either post it as ASCII art. or sketch, scan and put on a web site, or some other way to achieve something visual?

One main thing that a worktop jig does is to produce an angle for the postform joint (the curved front). Most jigs will deal with a right angle or 45 degrees where the resultant angle is 135 degrees.

What do you mean by a cooker in this sense? Is this a hob set into the angled section of worktop?

Jigs can be quite versatile. I recently used a Screwfix one to help create a desk for my office. I had a problem that may be the same or similar to what you describe.
I used a beech block worktop and wanted to create overall an L-shape. However, in the corner, I wanted space for a large CRT monitor and to site a keyboard in front of it. The main work area is 600mm deep and I wanted to create enough depth to accomodate monitor and keyboard since this used the overall space most efficiently.
So, the overall plan was to use an angled piece of worktop across the corner and then to put the monitor at the back. However, in order to achieve the required width, it was necessary to have quite a width of the angled run of worktop - more than the nominal 600mm. Because of the geometry, this would result in a space at the back of the angled piece - simply because of the depth of the worktop. It works out that there would be a 45 degree triangle missing at the back. In a kitchen, if this were a peninsula unit or in other applications, the missing section might not matter, but in my application I wanted the rear to be completely filled and meeting the wall.
I achieved this by creating the 45 degree joints using the recommended method with the jig. All front edges were in line following the profile of the curved edge. I was also able to cut the recesses for connecting bolts to hold the sections together. Biscuit joints were used during final assembly to locate and align the sections.
The rear triangular section was created using the jig to create the requisite 45 degree angled piece from a straight length of worktop - I simply didn't use the postform angled piece of the jig. The section was then biscuit jointed and glued and clamped to the rear of the angled section.
This is probably not quite what you want to achieve, but jigs can be versatile on what can be done with a little thought and planning.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(James Simpson)

http://imebgo.users.btopenworld.com /
Have a look there for the image - thanks
I think I got the angle wrong, the actual angle taken from the outside of the worktop is 225. (135 + another 90 :o))
Is this actually possible (keeping the rolled edge) or is my best bet to cut straight into the worktop and join with a straight mitre and cover the exposed peice with the laminate edging (I would rather try and keep the rolled edge)
Thanks - James
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27 Jan 2004 14:13:02 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (James Simpson) wrote:

OK.

The difference here is that where your triangular pieces meet the rectangular ones over the units. This is creating an external angle, which is not normally done. Usually, the section over the cooker would meet the sections over the units and form an internal 135 degree angle with the postform section. That works and I've done it. The 90 degree angle between the section over the cooker and the triangular pieces are also easily done.

I think it should be with most jigs if you invert them or as a minimum you could do a simple mitre on the external corner.
However, the whole thing is going to look quite odd and fussy whatever you do. Why does the cooker have to be set back? Could you bring it forward, even if it involves a deeper or wider worktop section......??

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ok, but I want to get rid of the tiles. I could move the cooker forard but the kitchen is not very big at all and it needs to site back to preserve space! Thanks for your ideas and advice, I may attempt a simple mitre and bolt the worktops together

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.