Ok, your lightsabre is intriguing. Once you've filed your patent and
it's no longer a "Nukleer Seekrit", come back and tell us about it.
I'm sure we'll all be very interested and you will no doubt get a
bunch of pointers.
As an economist, I can appreciate the joke. To try to do a market
study at this point is a little premature: assuming a can opener won't
get the can opened. Besides, this economist doesn't take canned food
into the bush: too heavy for hiking and much better food can be taken
along. Anyway, who ever heard of people going into the bush without a
knife, which is perfectly adequate to open a can. So, show us the can
and we'll tell you how to open it.
BTW, don't brag about having an MBA, it gives you no credibility with
this group. :-)
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Woodworking
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:03:31 -0800, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
Glad the "desert island"/can-opener reference was instantly recognized! I
have an undergrad degree in economics, from which I mostly remember (a) as
per Father Guido Sarducci's Five-a Minute University, "Supply and Demand"
(and maybe guns-and-butter), (b) IS-LM ... ummm ... one's like ...
monetary... flow-y ... things, and the other is, like ... ummm ...
products and stuff?; and (c) most people who offer up their opinions on
national affairs should have taken at least basic econ before so doing. >;-)
And - I wasn't meaning to brag about the MBA. It's actually sort of
hanging, dusty (sawdust, of course) and unused, on my wall - I might sell
it on eBay for the $60k (USD) it cost me. The point was to fend off all
the "invention advice" that gets offered up at the drop of a hat whenever
anyone mentions Inventions in any gathering of two or more Men Who Like To
Make Things.
Especially if any of them have beards. Or still have a slide rule in a
drawer, somewhere. Red Green comes to mind. ;-)
Finally -- looked at the torsion box and Galleria project. I bow to you.
Andrew
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:19:53 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
[snip]
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
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:51:33 -0800, charlie b wrote:
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.
1. Yes, it'll do twisted -- see Ipe', above ;-). I'm still refining that
part of the design, but so far, it's pretty good.
2,3. Not sure yet. I'm working on increasing the usable width-of-cut, so
there're a lot of variables to be worked out: motor HP, depth-of-cut,
width, etc. (Please realize that YOUR question has a few variables left
out -- you can take a much deeper cut, at a higher feed rate, in clear
pine or DF, than in red oak. >;-)
4.) Again, not sure. I do have some local tree-cutters drop off some
log-sections -- lately got a few hundred lbs. of unsplit black walnut and
figured olive, nearly 12" across, unchecked, and probably 20+" long) in a
load of FIREWOOD, for heck's sake! They're sitting in the shop with
paraffin on the ends for a while as I think about what to do with 'em. But
- 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
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.
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:56:53 -0800, theblacksheep wrote:
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 original proposal for a tool that would actually
flatten one side before planing the other?
snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:08:10 -0600, Mike Berger wrote:
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
Already been done, many European manufacturers make
jointer/thicknessers. Jointer on top, thicknesser under. See:
http://www.griggio.it/categoria_prodotti.php?grp 0&grptitle=PLANER/THICKNESSER&linea=1&lang
http://www.minimax-usa.com/jointer-planer/fs30.html
http://www.rojekusa.com/PHP/msp310m.php
http://www.felder.co.at/d_main_produkte_details.php?id_lang 00000004&id_produkte 00000110&uid_p_kat_lang 00000034&id_p_kat_lang 00000090
etc.
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
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Woodworking
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
B.
Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 2:31am snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net (Buddy Matlosz) doth
sayeth:
<snip> next time you have an idea, <snip>
Might want to research it first.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
(Buddy Matlosz) doth
sayeth:
<snip> next time you have an idea, <snip>
Might want to research it first.
You can start here: http://www.uspto.gov /. 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
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:57:10 +0000, Steve Peterson wrote:
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
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 trying to steer anyone in the right direction.
(Buddy Matlosz) doth sayeth:
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.