New tool idea -- need your opinions! (Hint: one machine instead of a planer AND A jointer)

A few questions, as I'm trying to develop a new machine, and maybe a little informal market research. (NOTE - I am NOT trying to sell anything. I'm trying to develop this little machine in my own basement, and am a LONG way off. I'm just trying to get a sense of what "serious amateurs" to "smaller professionals" think of the idea.)

A) How much are y'all frustrated by the current situation -- that is, that you need a jointer to flatten one face, and a planer to make the other face flat-and-parallel to the first?

(And - you need two machines that do *just* about the same thing, but take up 2x as much space, and one's heavy as heck, and both need their knives sharpened and then adjusted.... Oh, and a jointer's usually 6" whereas a planer's 12.5" or 13" -- unless you take the safety guard off the jointer and do 2 passes....

(And, the planer snipes, and both of 'em scallop your wood...?)

B) What do you think about a single machine that'd look a lot like a Performax-type drum sander, only about 1/2 to 3/4 size, that'd perfectly flatten even a cupped/warped board on one side, then flip it and it'd plane the other side perfectly parallel? No snipe, no scalloping. (And, unlike a drum sander, a smoothly PLANED, not sanded (fuzzed, micro-scratched) surface.)?

C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do boards up to about 13"?

Is that something people'd be interested in? Please help this amateur inventor!

Thanks, Andrew

Reply to
Nobody
Loading thread data ...

Probably...sounds like you would like what you've outlined, right. Burn the midnite oil and get it to market. Then I'll pop in to my local tool store to kick the tires. oh, and I'll want to read a review of it in a major mag or two before I seriously consider it's purchase.

Go for it!

hey, it's not April Fool's yet, is it??

Dave

Reply to
David

No, it's not a joke. I have some of it working rather nicely, based on several different power tools you're probably quite comfy with already. It's the novel combination of those -- plus a key, older idea that was patented (now expired) -- that's the key.

I know all about "yeah, we'll need to see it, and some reviews, before we'd believe it".

My point is "SUPPOSE it worked as advertised -- is that something there's demand for? Would people much rather have a one-machine solution? Do people really understand that, now, you DO need two machines? Is there actually "pain" in the marketplace?"

Pretend with me, for the moment, that what I'm saying about the machine is true, and could be proven -- NOW -- how do you feel about the idea?

Thanks, Andrew

Reply to
Nobody

Isn't it the X5 or one of the other "All-In-One" wonders that has the 12" joiner/planer combo? But to answer your question, Yes, I do believe a lot of people would be interested. You should contact someone like Jessem in Canada that has come out with some recent entries in the woodworking market in the past couple of years and talk to them about what it takes to get an idea through to fruition.

You may be better off selling the idea to some company that has the means to develop it and market the product. There are a lot of good inventions sitting in peoples shops simply because they don't know what to do next. Build a prototype to insure the idea works, document it and get a patent for it. It took my brother 3 years to get his patent finally approved but that involved chemicals. His lawyer and the patent searches were not cheap but in the end, he paid the bills and made a few bucks but nothing to brag about. He said he could have made more money selling it to the company that first offered to buy it from him....

Point being... If you can't patent your idea, you have little protection from it being copied and brought to market even before you have a single model to sell. How will you manufacturer it and market it?

When it's all said and done, you might be able to manufacturer these yourself and capture a niche market of "Built to Order" but I wouldn't quit my day job just yet. Sorry to be so doom and gloom but I've been a part of that process in the past. Not easy, not fun and it takes money and hard work. Should you make it though, I'd sure like to see one...

Bob S.

Reply to
BobS

Sound good to me but what about edge jointing for panel glue ups?

Reply to
Wayne K

I'd buy it tomorrow; but, as Wayne pointed out, you would still need a jointer for edge jointing.

Reply to
Toller

Check this link out

formatting link

Reply to
John Wilson

I'd be seriously interested, Andrew. I can't imagine you hitting that low of a price point, though.

Dave

Reply to
David

Snip

It already exists and The street value is about $695 from Rikon.

formatting link

Reply to
Leon

That's easy. He'll have made in China.

Reply to
CW

Doh!!! That's pretty funny! So much for researching the existing market. Really, this idea could be a really good one but I don't think Rikon executed it very well. Maybe the OP could do a better job. The problems I see with the Rikon is that the tables are way too short compared to most other jointers, especially the larger capacity jointers. And, the tables are made out of aluminum instead of cast iron. And, only a two knife cutterhead. But maybe it works just great. Rikon supposedly makes pretty good bandsaws but I've never heard about anything else they sell.

Bruce

Reply to
theblacksheep

Dave

Reply to
David

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:48:33 -0800, Nobody scribbled:

Already been done, many European manufacturers make jointer/thicknessers. Jointer on top, thicknesser under. See:

formatting link
?id_lang=0000000004&id_produkte=0000000110&uid_p_kat_lang=0000000034&id_p_kat_lang=0000000090etc.>C) And, suppose it cost somewhere in the $250-450 range, and would do

This I would like to see. The European machines are great but cost an arm and a leg. Depending on the quality, I might buy one.

There, you have my two cents (Canadian).

Luigi Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Luigi Zanasi

The idea of passing a board acrossed the top of the cutter head of a planer to face join one face before planing the other face parallel has been around for a while and the combination is available on several currently available machines - and at a size and with jointer tables long enough to handle furniture sized stock. Felder/Hammer, Robland, Rojek, Mini Max and others all have such units, all with 3+ HP TEFC motors. The combination will let you flatten one face, regardless of whether it's bowed, cupped or TWISTED.

Your description of your idea begs several questions

  1. can it do the job on a TWISTED piece of stock?
  2. what's the max depth of cut per pass?
  3. what feed rate at maximum depth of cut?
  4. will it work on green or resinous wood without gumming up?
  5. what is the functional life expectancy of the medium used to remove the wood?
  6. what is the cost of replacement of whatever it is that removes the wood?
  7. How thin can the stock be goiing into the unit?
  8. will it produce a straight, flat edge that is square to one flat face?
  9. can the planer set up be kept when going back to joining one face?
  10. joining and planing generate a great deal of "waste" - can they effectively be removed with a dust collector?
  11. how complicated/complex is the set up?

charlie b

Reply to
charlie b

Andrew,

In addition to the other advice and links you've received, here's another tip for you as an "amateur inventor": next time you have an idea, don't broadcast it all over usenet (or anywhere else) - if it's a good idea, someone will grab it and run with it so fast it'll make your head spin. Take it in person to a few knowledgeable people and have them sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand.

Reply to
Buddy Matlosz

And:

formatting link
pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Reply to
J T

Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 2:31am snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net (Buddy=A0Matlosz) doth sayeth: next time you have an idea,

Might want to research it first.

JOAT Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.

Reply to
J T

Might want to research it first.

You can start here:

formatting link
There is help for inventors with a new invention, and you can check the patent archives to see what has already been patented. Your patent has to be useful, but it also has to be novel and non-obvious.

Once you have the patent application filed, you can go ahead and figure out how to manufacture, distribute and sell it. If you thought the original invention was a difficult challenge, you will find these to be nearly insurmountable and it is where most new inventions founder and die. It is a really good idea to find some company that can already provide these functions and license the invention to them. Royalty income is a nice addition to whatever you really live on, and keeps you from having to spend all your time on activities that probably don't interest you. And even if you like manufacturing, you may hate distribution or sales.

If you figure out a relatively painless way to solve these problems, let me know. I have a novelty ruler that measures in astronomical units, atoparsecs. Every amateur astronomer should have one.

Good luck, Steve

Reply to
Steve Peterson

I noticed the short beds a few weeks ago also. This would be ideal for a hobbyist though as the length of the in deed and out geed would handle 6' and shorter boards pretty well. Also, Rikon does not manufacture. They have tools made to their specs. I noticed that they have a Tormek alternative that looks a lot like a Tormek and is much cheaper.

Reply to
Leon

Plus the one I've had w/ the automated "planer as jointer" machines--how do you control and drive a non-flat piece of material past the cutter head w/o distorting it to get the initial flat reference surface? That's the reason for the jointer initially and why working a piece through the planer first (unless it's so thick as to be essentially rigid) doesn't work.

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

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.