Yes. I saw your other post and gather I misinterpreted your initial point...
In this case, all I was trying to do was to clarify that once the other operation was done, it was done--unless, of course, the stock does move significantly enough afterwards to destroy the previous work...
So, I guess the upshot is we're both right and have probably totally p-o'ed the OP... :)
I'd go for a planer/thicknesser....
you'll need both in the end and if you scout round you'll (with time) find one at the right price. I have a 12X4 PT and am now looking round for a
12X7 or 8. My workshop is small else I'd be looking for a 24X8cheers
Nicholas
Not in Arizona. Given the radical changes in humidity between here and where that stock was originally thicknessed, it has a nasty tendency to bow, warp, cup, etc.
You can work around this, but you need to choose your wood carefully if you don't have a planer.
--RC
I still say the two surfaces will be (essentially) parallel to each other... :)
They may not still lie in a flat plane, but that's a different issue as I've noted before. In that circumstance certainly one would have to resurface and all that--I never claimed otherwise.
You don't have to be in Arizona for that to be a problem. Right here in central Indiana, for instance - where we have a pretty considerable difference in humidity between winter and summer. If I buy wood in the summer, and bring it from a non-climate-controlled lumber warehouse to my air-conditioned home, I want to let it sit at least a week before I try to mill it.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Alan Penn wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Well, really you need both. But if I could only choose one, I'd vote for the thicknesser. That's because in my opinion it's less work to joint (plane) by hand than it is to thickness by hand. Doubtless other opinions will differ ... I'm just stating my own.
First of all, I have to say that you folks on the right side of the pond got the naming right on these machines.
What we Americans call a jointer will prepare an edge for jointing, but that is a special case of what it does, which is to surface one edge or face of a board to a single plane -- so planer seems the logical name (as does the analogy to a hand plane) What we call a planer does not put any surface into a plane, except by the happy coincidence that the opposite surface is already in a single plane. But it does create boards of uniform thickness -- which is probably why you silly Brits call it a thicknesser.
Now if you guys would get rid of all those silly extra vowels, you would probably have "our" language down right!
And finally to your question -- I'd choose the thicknesser if I could only have one. It can be jury-rigged to create a plane surface. Also, the function of a planer (jointer US) is much easier to accomplish with hand tools than is that of a thicknesser.
Tue, Mar 8, 2005, 12:31pm (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@codesmiths.com (Andy=A0Dingley) says: The jointer could be replaced by a good workbench and a couple of hand planes. Sometimes it is.
I've got just the planer (thicknesser). When I need a jointer (planer), I run the wood thru the planer using a planer sled. A bit of a PITA, but works well. If you go with one, I'd say the planer (thicknesser), with a planer sled.
JOAT Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
I do much the same for first passes on timber, although I don't bother with the sled.
You can prepare S2S stock with a thicknesser alone. If it's too twisted a board for this to work, then it's too twisted to trust it to stay reliably stable. Sometimes I need to use an electric planer to knock the high spots down by hand before feeding it, but that's just a coarse process and doesn't take long.
Sorry, but rethink the quartersawn board.
What Alexy said... but let me add one more thing:
IMNSHO nothing looks more dopey and amaturish than 3/4" drawer sides (DAMHIKT). I'm not just talking about drawer sides but that's a good example. From a design/style perspective, limiting yourself to stock thicknesses generally leads to unattractive proportions.
Sure, you can produce attractive designs with stock thicknesses, but I think that is a really big limitation that more often than not leads people to make poor aesthetic design decisions based on "it's what I have".
-s
infrequently.
Andy, JT,
Regarding preparing stock w/ thickness planer alone:
I'm familiar w/ the planer sled approach (FWW #175), but talk a bit more about going without the sled on stock that is not face-jointed, please.
I ask because I'm going the "planer(US) only" route right now; edge jointing will be either a router or TS operation; but I'd been assuming I had to "face joint" w/ the sled before thicknessing.
Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?
Thanks, Chris
Andy D>
bother
if the cupped board has no twist or bow and is thick enough that the feed rollers will not press out the cup, then in theory yes.
Absolutely. The rollers may compress the cup a little bit (such that it will spring back) but you can mitigate that by flipping several times rather than just flatten - flip - flatten.
Sleds really just needed to address bow/twist.
Steve
Wed, Mar 9, 2005, 12:41pm (EST-3) www snipped-for-privacy@compassimages.com (TheNewGuy) says he asks: I ask because I'm going the "planer(US) only" route right now; edge jointing will be either a router or TS operation; but I'd been assuming I had to "face joint" w/ the sled before thicknessing.
I'm not sure I understand any question there, as phrased. Face joint? With a sled? Had to?
Can I put a purely cupped board in and get to two flat, parallel faces?
If you are pure of heart, and have faith, and send proper sacrifices for the Woodworking Gods, you can do anything you put your mind to. So, I would say yes, but I don't see doing it without using a sled. I also think you'd wind up with a pretty thin board, and, quite possibly, quite a bit shorter.
You'd probably be way further ahead listening to Andy, rather than me. I tend to think about things like that, and, if they seem reasonable, and just try it, usually I don't bother asking questions.
JOAT Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
Don't try to take too much off at once. This increases the pressure from the feed rollers and bends the board as it goes through - so it emerges still with a cupped face.
It's not quick. It's usually quicker to knock off the worst of the high spots with a hand-held powered planer beforehand (the only thing I use one for)
You should try and even the board up before feeding it - lower the high spots on each side, so that the board is level. If you feed it through so that teh bulk of the timber is tilted, then you have to remove even more stock before getting a useful board.
As for any board, bad cupping requires a lot of waste to be removed before obtaining a flat board. It may be more efficient to rip it in half first, providing two narrow, but thicker, boards.
Bad cupping usually represents a lot of stress in a board. Expect the board to warp further as you remove this stress - take it halfway down, leave it overnight, then go back to it.
You'll have a lot of trouble planing a warped and twisted board. Think about cutting it smaller instead, or even putting it on the firewood pile.
There wasn't a question, just stating what my assumption had been up until Andy's post; that with ONLY a planer(US) at my disposal, I thought the process would be "always" face joint one side of the stock board using a sled arrangement; then thickness plane "as normal." I inferred from Andy that SOME boards, depending on the character of their unplanarness, could be stuck right-off into said thicknesser w/o the sled operation.
Sorry, that above question of mine should have ended with, "WITHOUT using a sled to face-joint first."
Thanks, Chris
OK, good point.
Don't have one of those, but I suppose I could shave a few passes w/ a jack plane; few passes at the center of the convex side, few passes on the edges of the concave side...
Yup, I remember having this conversation in a different thread :) Knowing the risks & precautions to take when ripping said board...
Again, good idea this newbie wouldn't have thought of.
At the very least, these types of boards I'd definitely work with the planer sled to try to flatten a face; but yeah, at some point, very quickly, there's not enough stock thickness to get to your final thickness.
Thanks again, Chris
Thanks Steve, I'm getting the point now :^)
I don't use a sled, because I manage without one, but if there are to be "two camps" over this technique, then they would be the "use a planer first" and "just do it in the thicknesser", rather than the "sled" and "shove it in" schools.
The planer crowd argue that you can't make things flat with a thicknesser. Thicknessers work from the "back surface", so their flatness-making is somewhat indirect. In some cases (twist) it never works.
The "just thickness it" approach is much the same whether you use a sled or not. Now I don't, which means I put badly supported timber into the thicknesser. This is a bad practice - it's prone to squashing flat if I put excess pressure on, it reduces the gripping width under the feed rollers and it's generally unpredictable. So be careful if you do it and be gentle with your cuts.
In most cases you don't need the sled, even with quite severe cupping, so long as it's symmetrical. In cases that are too bad to work unsledded, then use the hand-held scrub plane to knock the outer high spots down. You don't need to do the centre - that's a broad area, so leave it to the broad cutters of the thicknesser. Those skinny high spots though are quickly reduced and can save you a lot of time.
If you don't already have one, preparing rough timber should use a scrub plane. You can make an effective one from your roughest Stanley #4, a Stanley iron ground with a pronounced crown to the edge, and a mouth that's wide open, even if this needs some filing. Use it diagonally, because you aren't making long fluffy shavings anyway.
As to twisted timber, then this needs either a sled or an axe. I just don't bother with it. Apart from larch, which always twists, then if I find a twisted oak board then it's something I shouldn't have bothered to saw in the first place. Good timber doesn't twist (apart from larch) - if you have twisted stock, there's something funny happening. It might well be reaction branch wood that's never going to be good for much. Either saw out a usable and stable piece, or keep yourself warm with it.
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.