Jointing on TS isn't rocket science

[boorite]

Just a note to anyone who is reluctant to try edge jointing on the table saw. I've been thinking about this in light of some recent posts.

Last night, I tried something akin to the method described below.

took about 5 minutes to make a semi-sacrificial fence and start jointing a beat-up piece of mystery wood from my scrap bucket. I got some machine marks, but not nearly as prominent as I sometimes get when doing a conventional rip. The machine marks came out with a few swipes from a jack plane. The results were extremely encouraging.

What makes this sort of a gloat is the slackluster effort and substandard machinery I put into it. The saw was a Delta Shopmaster TS220LS, one of the beefier benchtop saws with the decent-sized aluminum table. The blade is the one that came with the saw, and it needs cleaning, and I have not done *any* alignment on the saw (and this is kind of embarrassing, now that I see it in writing) for several years, during which time it rode in the back of a truck from Maryland to Wyoming. The result had no right to be as good as it was.

Similarly, the jack plane was a Buck Brothers el plane-o special from the Borg that's been lying around in the state to which such tools seem accustomed (unused) for several years. All I did was take it apart and put it back together semi-right. (The cap iron is probably too far back, and there's probably too much mouth showing.) I did not lap the sole nor oven hone or sharpen the iron, much less flatten the horribly-finished cap iron. And this plane took the machine marks right off and produced nice curly shavings and left a glassy finish. I was amazed. This very plane is frequently described as "unusable" and "garbage" and "a door stop" and "unsuitable even for a dog to throw up on," and I was expecting it to live up to that rep. It was sort of a due diligence test before tuning it up and then finally shelling out for a L-N. Not to say I don't still want one, or that the Home Cheapo model is in the same league-- I was just surprised that it worked at all.

I figured this experiment would be a total wash until I set everything up correctly, but much to my surprise, the results were pretty good. Now when I clean and align and sharpen everything, I expect the results will be good enough. It's so easy that I wonder why I ever hesitated to try it.

[Teamcasa]

"boorite"

Snipped

IMHO That's the rank's in my top 5 silly ideas for a jig category. If you need a straight/90 edge and you don't have a jointer or a half decent hand plane, then why not tack (double stick tape, brads, whatever) a straight board on the crooked board and rip. 2 minutes, done.

Dave

[boorite]

Sure, to get the edges parallel, I do that. You can even tape a length of angle iron to the fence side of the board for a reference edge. To me, the idea of jointing is slightly different. With the support on both the infeed and outfeed sides, and referencing the fence on the waste side of the board, you can plane and joint an edge a hair at a time without ever resetting the fence.

To me it seems that if this kind of fence is a silly waste of time, then devoting a whole standalone machine (the jointer) to the same idea must be a *really* silly waste of time!

[boorite]

I agree, but the thing is, that way is 2 minutes every time. Then if you want to take more off you have to bump the fence, check cut line, bump the fence, etc. Another board-- you have to tack on the straight edge, adjust the fence, etc. With the sacrificial fence, you spend 5 minutes making the thing, and from then on you slap the boards on and go, just like with a jointer.

[blueman]

I am a novice here and may be missing something here but why do you need multiple pieces of wood. Why not take simple 1xX stock, stand it on its side, raise the blade all the way and kerf out the infeed portion.

Then you can screw/clamp the single board on edge just like a standard sacrificial fence.

Also, if you do it this way then you don't have to move the rip fence to the other side of the blade (which my saw can't do anyway) since you can flip and rotate the board.

Finally, I don't see why you need to kerf out the full width of the blade, in fact you could make multiple such "jigs" to allow for different jointing depths that are tied to "round" number units such as 1/16" or 1/32" as opposed to the arbitrary unit of blade kerf width. Since, according to my understanding you need only a single board it should literally take only a couple of minutes to make up a set of standard widths.

Am I missing something here?

[boorite]

Almost exactly what I did! I didn't do it just like the page I cited, but more like you say, except in reverse order. I raised the blade all the way, set the rip fence just right of the blade, enough to take slightly less than a kerf's width off the left face of the sacrificial fence. Then I fed it (on edge) partway through, stopped the saw, lowered the blade, flipped the thick end of the sacrificial fence to the back of the table, fixed it to the rip fence, and lined up that thicker back part *exactly* with the left side of the saw blade. Then I raised the blade into the sacrificial fence. With the fence on the right and the workpiece referencing it on the left face, the front part of the fence guides the far edge of the work in just shy of the right side of the blade, and the back part supports the work exactly even with the left side of the blade. Make sense?

The reason I cut from the front, flipped, and raised instead of just raising the blade into the fence and pulling it out from the back is so my hand wouldn't get yanked into the blade in the event of kickback.

Since my fence is on edge, it's taller than the one pictured in the article.

(I actually hadn't seen that webpage until I was posting this thread and looking for an illustration of what I was trying to do.)

Yeah, exactly, I never did.

Very much so, exactly.

[dpb]

boorite wrote: ...

On what kind of material did this experiment take place? I'd suggest on cherry or other furniture wood the results might not have been so pleasing...

...

I've never tried such a technique as I would either use the jointer or a good plane to start with after simply ripping to near width, but if you don't have either a jointer or a good plane, I'd think a similar setup w/ a good router and spiral bit would provide a far better surface on a broad range of woods...

YMMV, IMO, $0.02, etc., etc., ...

[boorite]

Some crap that's been in my scrap pile for years. I'll try to ID it.

I do suspect that tame grain has a lot to do with it.

Yeah, I've got one of those 3/4 hp mini shapers set up to do this with a carbide-tipped straight bit, and it does well. Can also set up my little router table this way or go handheld with a laminate bit against a straight edge. The advantage of the TS setup over the shaper/router table setup is support for long or wide work. It's also faster than the handheld router method.

Just another way of doing the same thing.

[Steve W]

Pretty clever idea I think. I was about to try a little jointing on my router table, but this seems easier to set up. Why would a router set up work better?

-Steve W

[boorite]

I think it's easier to get away totally without machine marks with a router. I haven't done any edges with spiral bits, but with a plain old two-flute carbide straight or laminate bit, edges come out very clean. I think tearout is more of a problem, though.

But like I said, the machine marks are nothing to plane off, and I'll bet if I put in a good blade and aligned everything, they might go away altogether. I'll be getting a WWII sometime soon (and sticking it in a bench saw?), and I keep hearing they produce glue-ready edges. So we'll see. In the meantime, I might try one of those cheap hollow-ground planer blades just to try it.

To me, it's easier to slap a fence on the saw table than to swap router bits and then have to either set up a straightedge or the router table fence.

[Ron Magen]

First - I remember this item . . . it's probably in my 'Jig & Fixture notes'

*collection*.

However, I never built it . . . because I didn't seem to need it ???!!!

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the whole reason for 'jointing' is to obtain a flat, smooth surface for 'full contact' gluing - hence the appellation 'JOINT-ing'.

Some time ago I 'won' a free trial {on THIS forum} of a Ceramic-Tipped saw blade. The proviso was that I use it and report my findings. Figuring it would be one of toughest tests, I used it to fabricate a transom from 3 Mahogany boards. I ripped them to approximate size, glued them up, in two stages, using clamps & cauls. It looked like ONE, SOLID, PIECE !! Still does . . . 3 years later.

Granted, some people use a jointer to 'surface' 6 or 8in boards {depending on the size of their equipment}but that is not germane to this discussion. Being a 'small boat' sailor & builder, I'm a big believer in 'multi-tasking' equipment. If a 'dedicated' piece is needed, I'll usually build a jig or fixture. Again, if memory serves, a fixture like this - only MUCH larger - was designed for use on a Router Table for the same purpose, only for planks to about 8ft in length.

Regards, R>

[boorite]

Having looked at it more closely, and thinking about where it came from and when, I think it's bald cypress. That would explain why it was so workable.

Maybe I'll try El Plane-o on some oak now.