These combination machines have a jointer to straighten and flatten the stock. Then after flattening the stock you run it through the planer. Have you seen the Rikon? The Rikon has short beds but has a 10" jointer capacity and then you run the flat on one side wood below the bed area to plane to thickness.
That's what I was talking about--although perhaps I didn't write it as clearly as I could have :)
To drive the material across the planer/jointer as OP suggests seems to me to be describing an automagic drive that would have sufficient support to prevent kickback and drive a wide work piece against a rotating cutterhead w/o compressing the workpiece. Seems a mean trick if he can arrange it.
It takes a significant amount of force to do that. I suppose one could rearrange it to use something like a router in a plane and not move the workpiece or make the cuts w/ such a cutter that works a lot less material at a time, but that doesn't sound like what OP has in mind...
Understood -- and looking at existing approaches to jointers and planers, your skepticism is pretty reasonable.
However - the approach I'm taking is very different. Probably about 3/4 of the parts (motor, castings, power-transmission & speed control, etc.) are directly comparable to a very common shop tool that I can buy right now for $90 - RETAIL. I avoid a lot of the expense since I don't need the heavy castings of a jointer, or the complicated infeed/roller system of a planer.
And - for some validation of the technical idea, a MAJOR tool group patented a hand power tool with a very similar approach (I won't say which, but it's either Bosch, DeWalt, Hitachi, or Makita), but never made it. (And, no, their patent doesn't actually interfere, for subtle reasons.)
Andrew
I've seen that Inca machine, and there's been a Hitachi "over-under" combo on the market way back when.
I note a couple of things, though. Most of the references I see (including the review you pointed out) are from about
8 years ago. The Inca is pretty tough to buy, at least in the U.S. I did some pretty extensive Googling and finally found one for about $2,300.That's getting more into the pro-shop category, and a for that money you CAN get a pretty decent jointer and planer. I'm looking at something you might see on the shelf near stuff like DeWalt and Makita, maybe at a Woodcraft, or in the catalog Amazon sends us all.
Andrew
I've been aware of a number of over/under combo machines (a few other posters mention Rojek, MiniMax, and a bunch of other European mfgs.).
I'm not worried:
A) They don't sell at all well in the U.S. Hey - the Euro combo "5-in-1" machines are nifty, too, but this market just doesn't go for them, either.
B) They're fairly expensive, as someone else points out, below (one reason maybe they don't do so well).
But the big reason is this:
C) They ALL still basically use the SAME design that current jointers AND planers use -- a rotating drum, with feed rollers for the planer part.
So - they all will have varying problems with scalloping and snipe, and have a high part-cost. NO over-under drum design avoids these fundamental problems -- they can only tweak the engineering & mfg. better (which gets more and more expensive).
My design produces a ready-to-finish, (YES, really!) scraper-smooth surface, with no snipe, far less tearout on roey grain or tricky woods like B.E. maple, Brazilian (real) rosewood, or (gasp) ebony. And, yes, I've tested it and it works.
Andrew
The Rikon product doesn't do what the original poster said. It won't plane a flat surface on board, it will only plane a surface parallel to the other side.
Wasn't the orig> Doh!!! That's pretty funny! So much for researching the existing
GOOD questions. First, see my previous post about the existing over/under designs. Also - my design gets the same oomph from a smaller motor (yes, TEFC, but I can do a similar depth-of-cut with about half the horses due to how it works -- and, sorry, that gets into Nukleer Seekrits). I HAVE tested this a bit on the usual B.E. maple, walnut, cocobolo, etc., as well as my Terror Test: Ipe'. It's a nasty, tool-eatin' wood. If you've never worked Ipe' -- Google it. It has fine silica particles which blunt tool-edges fast, often roey grain, and is both hard and tough. GORGEOUS, though, and cheap as heck. The big, interesting problem with it is that they mill it in the rainforest to finished size, then ship it up to us with our -- let's say SLIGHTLY different -- humidity. So some of my Ipe' boards have been doozies.
- I don't usually work with wet/green wood until it's stabilized, so I don't know. Resinous -- I'd be glad to test that out -- what do you suggest, or have the most problem with?
5-6.) It's HSS at this point. It's also got a nifty design that allows the end-user to sharpen the cutting parts VERY easily, without needing high-precision. (KEY BENEFIT: unlike all common jointers/planers, the blades can be sharpened and re-installed WITHOUT recalibration or complicated setup/tweaking.) Current guess: the parts can be sharpened quite a number of times, then replaced for something like $20-40 total. 7.) How thin? VERY thin. Think guitar fretboards of REAL brazilian rosewood. 8.) No, at least, not yet. Currently, I'm just working on a machine to do two flat, parallel opposing faces. So, the "traditional" function of a jointer -- to do EDGES -- is not part of this. Ironic, I know. However, that's part of "Phase II". And it's easy to "joint" an edge with a router and a straightedge, or a tablesaw (which is what I do), so that's not such a big worry at this point. 9.) I think I understand your question -- can you keep the depth-of-cut setting on the planer, but joint the first-face on a new board? I'll have to think about that. How important is that? Wouldn't you joint the first face of all your boards first, then start to thickness-plane them? 10.) Dust collection is excellent. Probably considerably better than either jointers or planers. 11.) Setup is pretty straightforward. Can you elaborate on what you dislike about setup with either a jointer or a planer? (Table height difference on a jointer, e.g.?)Andrew
Excellent point.
Here's where I have to again invoke Nukleer Seekrits. I can't answer your question at the moment by telling you HOW I do it.
You're right, though -- take a cupped/bowed/twisted hardwood board, say
4-6" wide and maybe 5' long.Try to run it under a rotating planer head.
You need rubber drums to hold it down and feed it against the force of the knives pushing it back at you. Those feed-drums have to squish the (flexible) board against the table to keep the board from kicking right back out the infeed side. So they also have to squish it into a flat profile.
Once they're done trimming, the board springs back into its previously cupped/bowed/twisted state, and the "flat" face you just put on it -- ain't.
----------------------
A jointer works for this task BECAUSE it uses a flat table reference surface, using YOU for the feed force (not rollers -- and I didn't even mention the snipe that feed rollers invariably cause). You "average" the bottom surface, based on where the board contacts the infeed and outfeed tables (which is why jointers need MUCH longer tables than a planer). The bits of the bottom surface that stick out the most get shaved off, over multiple passes, until the surface has been "averaged" down to a flat, REFERENCE surface, as you mentioned.
-----------------------
So - I can't tell you HOW my machine design DOES avoid these problems -- I'm patenting some of the key ideas and can't disclose them publicly. But, if you don't need to "squish" the wood with rollers -- you avoid the problem.
Andrew
VERY well put.
Everyone so far is stuck in thinking about their existing jointer/planer designs, which (a) scallop and (b) kickback, which means (c) they need a particular type of power-feed.
If you don't have kickback, you don't need powerfeed. (And - hey - jointers kickback, but DON'T HAVE A POWER-FEED -- right? Note - this is a TOTAL red herring -- it's not the approach I take --but it's worth thinking about!)
Assume, for the sake of argument, that kickback ain't a problem. And, thus, the powerfeed, and compression of the workpiece, ain't a problem.
Pretend there's, say, Luke Skywalker's lightsaber suspended in there, and all you have to do is run the board through on a flat table, slice the top off perfectly level, flip it over, lower the lightsaber to spec'd thickness, and run the board through again. BINGO! (Except for the burn marks.)
Does that idea make everybody's conceptual problems go away?
Now, let's assume, as the old joke about economists goes, that I actually HAVE a lightsaber....
Andrew
Yep (says the Original Poster) -- the tool I'm working on WILL do both.
(Why do you say the Rikon won't? It looks like a jointer on top / planer underneath combo.....)
Andrew
Buddy,
Thanks for the advice.
Way back as a wee lad, I used to run workshops for inventors, for the SBA and the SBDCs in a western state. I also have a Wharton MBA, most of a law degree in intellectual property, and a lawyer father. Finally
-- I work in the Shark Tank of Silicon Valley as a marketing executive.
SO -- I know ALL about patents, inventions, and disclosure. I have a great law firm. And -- I haven't ACTUALLY "broadcast my idea all over usenet", if you look at it carefully. >;-)
I've definitely asked people about whether they're interested in WHAT my widget CAN do.
What I haven't done is describe HOW it does it. And therein, as the Bard said, lies the rub.
Best wishes, though, and thanks for your concern, seriously! Andrew
Thanks, Steve.
I think I just posted something to the effect of: I know the patent system well. (In fact, I've searched every possible patent in the particular class I need, and have about 2-300 patents retrieved and printed out -- I have a script that fetches them from uspto.gov and converts them to PDFs.) I'm in Silicon Valley, have an MBA from a top-3 school, and know intellectual property law pretty darn well -- but, sincerely, thanks!
I'm intrigued by your ruler that measures in attoparsecs (you misspelled the unit) -- but I find 1.21483474 inches, or 3.08568025 centimeters, to be an inconvenient unit of measure. That's just me.
By the way, how much do you weigh in yottadaltons?
Andrew
Umm Yes it will. It is a jointer on top and a planer underneath.
Hey, no prob. Always happy to help a newbie. Think I'll crawl back in my hole now.
B.
Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 1:57pm (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net (Steve=A0Peterson) doth sayeth: Your patent has to be useful, but it also has to be novel
Never heard the part about a patent having to be useful.
Once worked with an officer who had gotten a patent. For a stand to hold a helmet, so it could be filled with water, for shaving, washing. Portable, lightweight, collapsible, took up little spacee, etc. And, absolutely no market whatsoever for it. He'd figured he'd make a fortune, selling it to the military. Turned out, no one wanted to use it; handier to dig a small hole in the ground to hold the helmet, set them on tailgates, have a buddy hold it, etc., plus not having to take it down, and stow it. Only cost him about $10,000 (ten thousand) U.S. dollars.
JOAT Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
useful doesn't actually mean anyone has to want to use it. arcane patent law.
Never heard the part about a patent having to be useful.
Once worked with an officer who had gotten a patent. For a stand to hold a helmet, so it could be filled with water, for shaving, washing. Portable, lightweight, collapsible, took up little spacee, etc. And, absolutely no market whatsoever for it. He'd figured he'd make a fortune, selling it to the military. Turned out, no one wanted to use it; handier to dig a small hole in the ground to hold the helmet, set them on tailgates, have a buddy hold it, etc., plus not having to take it down, and stow it. Only cost him about $10,000 (ten thousand) U.S. dollars.
JOAT Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
I already weigh too much in pounds. Now you want to know in daltons? I don't want to think about it. Steve
btw, I have 15 patents. just try>
Ummm -- sorry -- YOU misunderstood. The ORIGINAL proposal (which was mine), does NOT have a jointer on top and a planer underneath).
Oops - sorry - now I understand what you meant. I suppose the Rikon would, indeed, do that.
:~) No prob.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.