Jointing happiness

[Upscale]

And then, a relatively simple and easier procedure to square up the panel after gluing up.

[Freddie]

Chris,

I understand your view points, but can't agree with them. In fact, my first powertool I bought specifically for woodworking was a Jointability (or something like that). A router based 'jointing' system. Yes, it worked - ok. Went to "jointing" on the Unisaw when I got it - it was even better. Oddly enough, still was not happy, bought the Powermatic jointer - and yes, better still. But after learning how to perfect a joint by hand - with a cambered blade - I'll never go back to anything else. Even with your points above, you don't address square. I didn't realize how important accurate stock preparation was (flat, true, AND square) till I started concentrating on it. Accurate layout is crucial to accurate joints. Square is a big deal; my results were dramatic.

I'm not telling Mark this way or that. The only reason I'm expending this effort is that I've been there with him (as outlined above). I've tried all these things - and have been MOST satisfied with handplanes. He's having a trouble with a glue up because he can't get a square component off the jointer. Sure you guys are helping him with a glue up - but what of his other components? Does square only matter with panels? Poo! How well does his M&T joinery work out? Slap some Dominoes in an run it through the wide belt sander? Eh... yes, I suppose that would work.

By the way, I didn't make this up. I learned it. Well known craftsman still do this...

- jbd

[Swingman]

"Freddie" wrote

No problem ... my point is that it has got do Ms. Whittaker, my 8th grade Geometry teacher, proud indeed when a former student of that dear old lady still uses something in the everyday workshop world that she taught, some

50+ years later:

The concept of the "complementary angle".

If you learn it, you might as well use it and pass it on.

[Freddie]

Understood, and fully agreed.

Zz

[sheldon.mandel]

i just have to say it..... I think the term is supplementary

shelly

[Swingman]

wrote

I certainly agree ... from the perspective of the desired reference/flatness of 0/180 degrees for the finished panel.

However, with most woodworking tools, like table saws and jointers, the reference angle from which angle measurements are usually made is 90 degrees, not 0 degrees.

In this case, a jointer fence that was supposedly perpendicular (90 degrees) to the jointer table.

The angle cut in an opposing piece, and canceling out any deviation from the desired 90 degree cut using the jointer fence as a reference, can correctly be termed "complementary".

Caution ... this concept can cause threads of enormous length and vitriol! :)

[sheldon.mandel]

good advice.... So n the spirit of good clean fun:

your argument is true, but in the cases where the boards are taped together, and hand planed simultaneously, supplementary correctly describes the way the boards face together - both when they are planed, and when they are glued up.

:) shelly

[Tom Veatch]

Supplementary angles are two angles whose sum is 180° Complementary angles are two angles whose sum is 90°

Therefore, the miter angles in a joint which forms a right angle when joined are complementary angles. Those in a joint which forms a straight line when joined are supplementary angles.

Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA

[Swingman]

Read my first sentence again ...

:)

[Jack Stein]

Pretty much the same way you do with a hand plane. Sharp blade, thin cut. If that doesn't work then the table saw with the 40 or 60 tooth usually works fine. Actually, for glue ups like this the table saw works fine as long as there is no tear out. I've glued up pine off my

12 tooth already that was OK without jointing anything (for bench tops and such) and that works fine. The rough surface probably aids the strength of the joint. For something like solid cherry panels, like your going to make, my jointer almost always works fine, even with highly figured wood. I only worry about grain direction if I get tear out, which normally I don't.

[Mark & Juanita]

Thanks to both you and Swingman for your comments. My experience goes back to working with maple -- I had a terrible time with getting maple to joint even going the right direction without tearout. I'm going to try the methods you both recommended. I realize also that in the past several years, I've started taking lighter passes as well, that is probably going to solve the problems I encountered in my early years.