# edge planing



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

when starting out hand planing, one of the biggest problems is getting edges square.

mucking around today making some drawers from construction grade pine,
i put them through my mafell ad160,but was a little unhappy with the edges. so i tried with my LN N06, but still got some problems with getting things at right angles.

so checking around my stock i noticed i had one of the original Veritas Edge trimming block planes in bronze.

makes a really nice job of pieces up to about 1inch wide, and allows you to make sure the edge is square to your face. helps build confidence. and you can get some really thin shavings :lol: 

LV now do an improved version in ci both left and right handed.

for those starting out with hand planing, this might be the way to go at the beginning.

paul :wink:


----------



## lurker (5 Jul 2007)

Is this advice or a gloat :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mr (5 Jul 2007)

Your edge and face may be square but is your edge convex due to use of such a short plane ? 
Nothing beats a no 7 
Cheers Mike


----------



## bugbear (5 Jul 2007)

mr":t6fa9jdh said:


> Your edge and face may be square but is your edge convex due to use of such a short plane ?
> Nothing beats a no 7
> Cheers Mike



Yah reckon' ?







BugBear (with apologies to Philly)


----------



## mr (5 Jul 2007)

And what did the Romans ever do for us! 
Oh alright then  
Cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

mike i agree that it is not the whole answer, but as i said when you are starting out (again in my case :? ) it does offer some advantages, not least it could present a square edge that you could then use the no 7 on :lol: 

bugbear that's not a plane that's a GLOAT plane. very nice sir.

anway just a thought, the veritas is about 7 inches long and the front is about 3.5 inches in front of the skewed blade so there is a little support on both ends.

the other point is that you can use this plane to cut end grain, and certainly on the pine i am using it is pretty good. highlights my bad hand sawing to size :? must learn to keep the saw upright and in line :lol: 

it just seemed to me that it was another answer. although at about 84 quid, maybe an expensive one :roll: 

of course i could always make a shooting board, but the drawers need doing before i finish my coffee table :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## woodbloke (5 Jul 2007)

bugbear":2qnwr6ye said:


> mr":2qnwr6ye said:
> 
> 
> > Your edge and face may be square but is your edge convex due to use of such a short plane ?
> ...



If that's the KH one (or similar) that was on the front cover of F&C a while back it's about £6k or so ............that's £6000 :shock: - Rob


----------



## Scrit (5 Jul 2007)

Paul, a small suggestion if I may. If you're having trouble with edges try clamping two or three drawer sides together and planing as one. The extra width will mean that your #6 has less of a tendency to tip

Scrit


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

scrit sound as usual. 

however. as has been said elsewhere you can still create problems 
otherwise why would the "experts" suggest using it for edge jointing.

as with all things if you practice enough it becomes easy. i was looking for another solution,and since i had the tool :? (moi a collector :roll: )

actually having tried it all, i will go back to other advice from you scrit, in terms of ripping off the original face edge.

thanks again for the input though :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (5 Jul 2007)

engineer one":2flyqdhs said:


> for those starting out with hand planing, this might be the way to go at the beginning.



I dunno. I find it a relatively miserable tool. It is hard to keep it flat to the face of the board if the board is wide or extra hard; the effort of planing tends to override the effort of keeping it flush. The handle is too low and I tend to knock my knuckles. If the piece is narrow, you'll bang the body into the vise. Or your fingers. The angle is so low that any grain reversals can be totally horrific, or choosing the wrong direction in the first place. The wood pretty much has to be in a vise (or clamped), otherwise you can't press sideways (I joint lots just against a stop). The original LV one had a dreadful adjuster and questionable steel in the blade (mine tends to roll the edge, maybe it is just mine).

OTOH, I use mine just 2 days ago when I had some thin stock that was a PITA to get just right; there it made up for its limitations, but I probably could have jointed it by lying it on a spacer on the bench as well (an impromptu shooting board for edges). Still, I was somewhat baffled with they came out with version 2 .. a few things solved, but mostly still the same problems inherent in the design. My bronze one does have a totally lovely patina though; it is quite nice to look at 5 years or so on.


----------



## Anonymous (5 Jul 2007)

engineer one":1hs6vru9 said:


> when starting out hand planing, one of the biggest problems is getting edges square.
> snip
> so checking around my stock i noticed i had one of the original Veritas Edge trimming block planes in bronze.
> makes a really nice job of pieces up to about 1inch wide, and allows you to make sure the edge is square to your face. helps build confidence. and you can get some really thin shavings :lol:
> snip


Scuse my ignorance but surely a Veritas Edge trimming block plane is entirely the wrong tool, although it could be made to do the job I suppose. 
Isn't it for trimming e.g. laminates, veneers etc, not for squaring up and much too short for straightening?

cheers
Jacob
PS for edge jointing/squaring by hand I'd use my 5 1/2 jack, or a no 7 for very long boards.


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

well i'm not prepared to surrender yet :roll: 

as i started this thread let me explain what my thoughts are.

if you have not done a planing course, or recently been taught, you can only practice. as i have found flattening the face is relatively easy :? 
although it does take time and effort.
but because of the thickness, edge planing is more difficult. and if you are only starting out again, then you probably have not yet built the shooting board, and anyway many of those are quite short. so you have to consider other ways.

the veritas tool is actually sold for the purpose described, but i agree it may well be too short. my idea was it gives you a better and easier way of getting the edge square to the face. the concavity is of course the next problem. i agree with the other paul that the original is a difficult tool to use, but if you are not as experienced as he, then maybe not so difficult.

so this is my new plan

i have ripped one edge, and made them all the same sizes, now i will try scrits idea of putting two pieces beside each other and use my no 6.

however i really liked the finish after using the veritas skew plane :? 
maybe i need to reset the no 6 :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (5 Jul 2007)

To a learner I'd seriously recommend sticking to *one plane only* preferably a jack, until you have really got the hang of it and can make it work for you, faces, edges, end grain, everything (within reason) and keep it sharp and in trim.
A different plane isn't necessarily a solution but is more likely just to be a different problem IYSWIM.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

very sage advice jacob, but i believe that unless you have been shown how to make one work properly,and i know that you disagree with many people over that, theni t can be difficult deciding what to use.

i agree that overall, a 5 1/2 is probably the best alround device in the initial stages beinglong enough for much work, and able to be used as a smoother.

paul :wink:


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

one other point though 

when planing the edge you actually have two problems if the board is upright. 

one is making square and correct to the face, 
whilst two is making sure you don't plane a parallelogram from front to back. not sure which is more of a problem 

but then of course you can always practice more.

paul :wink:


----------



## pam niedermayer (5 Jul 2007)

You may want to consider using a wooden jointer/jack since their height has a beneficial effect on one's ability to make good edges.

Pam


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

knew i needed another excuse to refurbish my old dutch planes :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (5 Jul 2007)

engineer one":2jl81on2 said:


> very sage advice jacob, but i believe that unless you have been shown how to make one work properly,and i know that you disagree with many people over that, theni t can be difficult deciding what to use.
> i agree that overall, a 5 1/2 is probably the best alround device in the initial stages beinglong enough for much work, and able to be used as a smoother.
> paul :wink:


No it's dead simple - if you don't know which one to use , use a jack.
If you get handy with a jack you hardly need any of the others - they're gilding the lily, adding value yes, but marginal.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (5 Jul 2007)

engineer one":5q30da96 said:


> knew i needed another excuse to refurbish my old dutch planes :lol:
> 
> paul :wink:


So your mrs is a woodworker? I'd get her to do the planing whilst you do the difficult bits :lol:

cheers
Jacob


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

and i thought you were from derby shire :lol: 

actually it is just that i bought many years ago a couple of really lOOOOONG woodies from amsterdam 

paul :wink:


----------



## Scrit (5 Jul 2007)

Sure they weren't klompen? (clogs) :roll:


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

well i wouldn't walk in them mate. the blades are too big thick and long :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Skip J. (5 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":2tubd79i said:


> No it's dead simple - if you don't know which one to use , use a jack.
> If you get handy with a jack you hardly need any of the others - they're gilding the lily, adding value yes, but marginal.
> 
> cheers
> Jacob


Hello Paul;

What Jacob says has merit. We all started with planes at some point before we got to "here" - where ever that is for each one of us. We've been through what you are experiencing now. Each of us worked through the problems the hard way. Most would change the way it was done if it could be done over...

One method is to concentrate on learning to plane first, and then start ww'ing with your planes and skills. You probably saw a bit of that learning to flatten... As has been said, jacks will do most any benchplane task; but perhaps not as well as a specialty plane. One of those is jointing edges. A longer sole jointer is certainly easier to use than a jack; but Jacob is saying that if you can learn how to joint with a jack, then you will really know what to do with a jointer when you have one.

Think of the neat little edge plane as a block plane. It does one special task very well if you know how to use it. You have to edge joint a board to the extent you think it is perfect first; then very carefully take one small shaving the full length of the edge, at all the same thickness. this is not a learner's technique.

Since you already have the little Veritas on hand, use a good straightedge to check and joint the edge of a spare practice board with your jack until it looks jointed to you. Check it with the straightedge to make sure. Then take one long chip with the edge plane and then check with the straightedge again. 

You might be surprised how much you need to sharpen and fettle the jack and practice jointing with it to get to that point. But once you do, you'll never be a learner again (on that one technique).

Take care...


----------



## engineer one (5 Jul 2007)

thanks skip, that's good advice

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (5 Jul 2007)

Scrit":175j6h50 said:


> Sure they weren't klompen? (clogs) :roll:


Radically improves performance if you stick a bit of 60 grit paper to the sole and put Fred Astaire on the sound system.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## mdm (6 Jul 2007)

Hi!
My 2 ¢:
I own since a while some Veritas planes and I'm fine with them. For edge planing, to get a straight and square edge I'd suggest a low-angle jointer with the fence to straighten up the edge and get near to squareness, and then a edge-trimming plane.

Sure the edge-trimming plane is short, and not suited to straighten up long edges, but it is lightweight and the side id always perfectly square, so it's easy to trim with few strokes a perfect square edge.
For the tasks where it's required a perfecly square edge (as for glueing pieces on the edge) i find the edge-trimming plane very useful. Obiously the job can be done in different ways (eg with just a fine tuned and carefully used jointer plane with fence), but I find this one the fastest and easiest.


----------



## engineer one (6 Jul 2007)

i actually have the veritas fence, but of course the problem is its depth.

if i had a different kind of vice, at the moment i am using a zyliss
then the fence would be good, but at this time would make it too high.

finally, last night, i ripped them, then clamped 3 sides together, and 
used my no 6 finally got what i wanted. :? 

anyway great thread, thanks for being helpful and sensible about it.

paul :wink:


----------



## mr (6 Jul 2007)

Paul on a single boards edge width you can also use your fingers as a fence which is what I do. The thumb sits on top of the plane, centrally and just in front of the blade and the rest of the fingers curve under the sole with the tips pushing against the workpiece. Like so 







which leaves you with 






I havent got a picture of with a square in against the edge but that edge is square to the face. You'll just have to trust me  

Excuse ugly mug. 
Cheers Mike[/img]


----------



## engineer one (6 Jul 2007)

sorry mike couldn't see the ugly mug, so where do you keep your coffee??? :lol: 

interesting and useful technique too. i will try that too. 

it is i am sure practice that makes it work, but rather like 3d chess, unless you do it daily it becomes an acquired skill that needs sharpening (sorry)
regularly to ensure that you keep it up.

also i think it is something you can get taught by going on a course, and then enhance with practice. 

still so far have moved forward again, so am happy that i continue to learn.

interesting bench top too :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## mr (6 Jul 2007)

engineer one":rvbr0ske said:


> interesting bench top too :roll:
> 
> paul :wink:



The bench is truly horrible isn't it  At least its flat and solid though. It was the first thing I ever made and it has served its purpose but apart from being generally badly made and designed, it's also showing signs of wear. That shoulder vice has pulled itself apart so many times that it's now beyond repair - I have to build a new one really - yet another thing on the list. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (6 Jul 2007)

if that doesn't put byron off making his own nothing will :lol: :lol: :twisted: 

paul :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (6 Jul 2007)

haha .. I thought my ears were burning! Nothing will put me off the workbench build, i've been wanting to do it for about 3 years!!

Paul - here's a little tip that might help you a little with the parallelogramawhatist problem. If you already have one square edge, you can use a panel gauge to scribe a line on the opposite edge, so when you come to joint it you have a reference scribe to work to and this will help keep the board parallel - now bear in mind i'm still a relative hand-plane newbie, but this is what I learnt when I went on a course and it's worked for me.


----------



## engineer one (6 Jul 2007)

thanks mate, nice to see you are watching.

i think the problem is that you are actually trying to learn two skills at once,
holding the plane flat and square in the vertical plane, plus pushing it along at a horizontal state.

i have used a modification of that idea, and gotten where i want i think,
but it does re-iterate my thoughts about going on a course :roll: 

paul :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (6 Jul 2007)

I went on the bruce luckhurst course, which is quite affordable and has a wealth of great tips/techniques - and he's a funny guy.


----------



## Newbie_Neil (6 Jul 2007)

Hi mdm

Welcome to the forum.

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## Skip J. (6 Jul 2007)

engineer one":25ne9ddd said:


> i think the problem is that you are actually trying to learn two skills at once,
> holding the plane flat and square in the vertical plane, plus pushing it along at a horizontal state.
> 
> i have used a modification of that idea, and gotten where i want i think,
> but it does re-iterate my thoughts about going on a course :roll: paul :wink:


Hello Paul;
Using the LV edge fences is a great idea to progress now into ww'ing, especially glue-ups.

However, Jacob has stated; and Mike has shown a picture of how to go ahead and first learn to do without.



mr":25ne9ddd said:


> Paul on a single boards edge width you can also use your fingers as a fence which is what I do. The thumb sits on top of the plane, centrally and just in front of the blade and the rest of the fingers curve under the sole with the tips pushing against the workpiece. Like so
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What some folks here are saying is that the various skills you have to learn to do what Mike is showing - with the top-of-the-line fettling and sharpening required - will benefit all of your efforts; not just edges...

And taking courses are great! Many starter courses teach both the plane set-up and the technique shown by Mike..

So eventually you wind up learning two or three techniques to do combined together; it just seems too much to learn it all at first when you want to get in there and glue some boards up...


----------



## bugbear (6 Jul 2007)

mr":3g2stvdh said:


> Paul on a single boards edge width you can also use your fingers as a fence which is what I do. The thumb sits on top of the plane, centrally and just in front of the blade and the rest of the fingers curve under the sole with the tips pushing against the workpiece.



Yep - that's the classic way, as shown in every carpentry and joinery book I've got, pretty much.

One of my favourite little "touches" in my (ahem) "set" of planes is on my round sided #608 (*).

It's in generally good condition (**), the jappaninng is actually worn away to the bare casting in a small area... just where the thumb goes when jointing as described above. Methinks that plane has jointed a few edges in its time...

BugBear

(*) meep!
(**) meep meep!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Jul 2007)

Listen here, if BB is going to gloat about his #608 (NICE one there, Paul!), then I will show off my 30" jointer again! :lol: 






I have just finished viewing Chris Schwarz' new DVD in which he makes extended use of the LN #8. It does look like a very good plane, somehow larger and more solid that the Stanley #8 I have used (no longer have). Still, I can recommend the LV BUJ, which has the registration of the #8, and greater flexibility.

Remember BB, if we don't see it, it doesn't exist.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbloke (6 Jul 2007)

Derek - don't gloat too much 'cos the next one I'm doing :wink: (unless Philly beats me to it) ......as a matter of interest, what's is the distance from the cutting edge to the front of the plane? - Rob


----------



## Jarviser (7 Jul 2007)

The method of putting your fingers under the sole as a fence is surely for those who have a cambered blade, using the plane's position side to side to tune up the angle minutely. With a flat blade it's a bit pointless. I mean they put a handle there to hold onto didn't they?
It's also a good way to lose the skin off your knuckles on the vice jaws when you forget the workpiece is only 3x1 ! (I've done it)
However, how darned square does the edge need to be?? If you are just talking about the top edge of drawers, that is achievable by feel, planing to a line and using a try square, like wot we were taught. If however you are jointing boards, if you put them face to face it matters not a jot if they are even vaguely square if you plane both edges at the same time. Either way a no6 is the minimum length IMHO.
That's my two penn'orth. Back into the teapot for me. zzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## Paul Kierstead (7 Jul 2007)

Jarviser":1quf3ksv said:


> However, how darned square does the edge need to be?? If you are just talking about the top edge of drawers, that is achievable by feel, planing to a line and using a try square, like wot we were taught.



Very good reminder. It is awfully easy to get all obsessed with achieving "perfection" where it is not needed nor contributes to the quality of the final product.


----------



## Alf (7 Jul 2007)

Jarviser":2dgo70sy said:


> Either way a no6 is the minimum length IMHO.


Depending on the length of the material you're jointing...

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ByronBlack (7 Jul 2007)

There's nothing wrong in aiming for perfection. Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon, aim for the north and you might break down at Watford!

Surely as hobbyists, isn't the persuit of perfection that drives us to our next project? Rather than just trying to crank out as many 'it'll-do' projects?


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jul 2007)

Jarviser":17jsjyop said:


> If however you are jointing boards, if you put them face to face it matters not a jot if they are even vaguely square if you plane both edges at the same time.



At last, someone other than me who does it the foolproof way. Works first time, every time. Can't go wrong :wink: Not many on here seem to favour this method, which is no doubt why some struggle so much....

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## mr (7 Jul 2007)

Jarviser":qs930qlg said:


> The method of putting your fingers under the sole as a fence is surely for those who have a cambered blade, using the plane's position side to side to tune up the angle minutely. With a flat blade it's a bit pointless. I mean they put a handle there to hold onto didn't they?
> It's also a good way to lose the skin off your knuckles on the vice jaws when you forget the workpiece is only 3x1 ! (I've done it)
> However, how darned square does the edge need to be?? If you are just talking about the top edge of drawers, that is achievable by feel, planing to a line and using a try square, like wot we were taught. If however you are jointing boards, if you put them face to face it matters not a jot if they are even vaguely square if you plane both edges at the same time. Either way a no6 is the minimum length IMHO.
> That's my two penn'orth. Back into the teapot for me. zzzzzzzzzz.



Far from pointless I find, it helps keep the plane flat in relation to the surface by avoiding allowing the sole to tilt to either side which won't give you a square edge. It is easy to run knuckles into the vice though Ive done that several times. As to how square things need to be its a case of what the application is surely. For edge laminating square is essential unless you match plane as you suggest which I do sometimes, depending on the work involved. I find it's often easier to plane one piece at a time to a square edge which really isn't difficult to do rather than mess around trying to align two boards. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Jarviser (7 Jul 2007)

ByronBlack":3azr9znp said:


> Surely as hobbyists, isn't the persuit of perfection that drives us to our next project? Rather than just trying to crank out as many 'it'll-do' projects?



Oh point taken, and I have tried all sorts of methods of getting the perfect square edge - shooting boards, router jigs, bolt-on side plates. In the end scribing lines both sides and planing down to the line with the plane meant for the job gives the satisfaction of getting to a good edge in just a few strokes of the jointer straight off the saw table. 

It's all down to tolerances - i.e. what level of imperfection is tolerable either by the aesthetics (appearance), or the function. If you can see little or no light under the square it is within tolerances for a drawer side, surely, where the height of the side is the key dimension. If you want to produce a table top of rubbed joints then the straightness is the key feature. Parallelism and width is not important, and neither is squareness if you use the method of planing both halves of a joint together. 

Perfection is making within tolerance. Take apart the leg joint of a beautiful antique and you will see saw marks and gaps, yet the finished object is perfect. Hand made dovetails are anything but perfect in dimension, yet they have a real beauty of fit and function.

Alf, I like using a no 6 for finish edging even on a workpiece a foot long - it just feels like you have the right tool with the blade set ready for the job. Dead sharp, flat face, set a little coarser than for smoothing, ready to finish what you started with the jack.


----------



## engineer one (7 Jul 2007)

thanks again guys.
my personal take is that you obviously need a flat face and a square edge for anything you do. but as has been said how square is square.

it is the other edge that causes the problems if you will, and this is a agree a practice of common sense and the expression of getting better at a skill which is greatly undervalued outside these four computer walls.

when making a glued up panel of four pieces recently i did indeed use edge planing of two pieces at a time. now what i should then have done is glue each pair together and then edge plane the resulting tops, so they too matched. in fact i did not i just folded the various pieces after doing the first two, and of course marking them properly ( :? )

however in the case in point i was combining two things, the actual making of some workshop drawers, and cutting and planing for practice some rough lumps of pine which have been hanging around for ages. so i was learning to do more hand sizing and finishing. the hand planed surfaces
are smooth and sleek, and even pretty square which has allowed me to impress myself even if no one else.

i would make the following somewhat whimsical point which is that many manufacturers of power drill these days include levels both horizontal and vertical in the handles, so i am surprised that one of the manufacturers has not done the same with planes :? :lol: :twisted: 

anyway this has been an interesting and useful thread for me, and i have definately learnt more about my skills. so far after all the practice, i find i am very happy using the no 6, for softwood.

paul :wink:


----------



## Scrit (7 Jul 2007)

engineer one":2amw9zkm said:


> ....you obviously need a flat face and a square edge for anything you do. But as has been said how square is square.


Paul

Being able to dimension a piece of rough sawn timber with a plane, a square and a marking gauge is about the most basic skill that a woodworker needs to acquire. It takes a bit of practice to acquire the skill but once you can do it it stays with you. How square is square you ask? If you are jointing it has to be square enough that the joint has no glaring gaps - for the edge of a drawer side it just has to _look_ acceptable. That's one of the nice things about woodworking - it's _not_ engineering with tree bits. 

Scrit


----------



## engineer one (7 Jul 2007)

mieeowwwwwww :lol: 

you are right, but at least this time i am learning one step at a time.
by getting my practice on the planing i am now getting the courage up to
try dovetails again ( :? )

as for engineering with wooden bits, i thought that was what working in mdf or other manufactured boards was all about :twisted: 

paul :wink:


----------



## woodbloke (7 Jul 2007)

ByronBlack":1d8l5503 said:


> There's nothing wrong in aiming for perfection. Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon, aim for the north and you might break down at Watford!
> 
> Surely as hobbyists, isn't the persuit of perfection that drives us to our next project? Rather than just trying to crank out as many 'it'll-do' projects?



Agree here BB, I aim for perfection in the work I do....I know I won't come near it in a month of Sundays, but it's what I go for, however _precision_ as disussed with others on a different thread is relatively easy to do and does go a long way in making the work better than it otherwise might have been.

Paul - I generally shoot board edges the same as you (always have done as it's the way I was taught by an ex-Barnsley maker) and never have any trouble. The method is pretty much foolproof as any slight out of square error is cancelled out. The critical thing tho' is to make sure the boards are shot fractionally concave by the thickness of a very thin bit of paper at the centre - Rob


----------



## mr (7 Jul 2007)

woodbloke":bkb6l4u1 said:


> Paul - I generally shoot board edges the same as you (always have done as it's the way I was taught by an ex-Barnsley maker) and never have any trouble. The method is pretty much foolproof as any slight out of square error is cancelled out. The critical thing tho' is to make sure the boards are shot fractionally concave by the thickness of a very thin bit of paper at the centre - Rob


I have and do on occasion joint edges two together, but as Rob suggests you don't want them concave. I prefer to have edge edge slightly concave by a shavings depth or so to pull the ends in tights when gluing up (for an edge laminated panel / top) . This isn't going to be possible if you matchplane is it or is there something I'm missing? 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jul 2007)

woodbloke":3fki17e2 said:


> Paul - I generally shoot board edges the same as you (always have done as it's the way I was taught by an ex-Barnsley maker) and never have any trouble. The method is pretty much foolproof as any slight out of square error is cancelled out. The critical thing tho' is to make sure the boards are shot fractionally concave by the thickness of a very thin bit of paper at the centre



\/ \/ That's four of us now - the method might just catch on... :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul

PS I agree about the fractional concave bit. A couple of DC's stop shavings followed by one full length usually does the trick.


----------



## mr (7 Jul 2007)

Paul Chapman":9e1475fj said:


> PS I agree about the fractional concave bit. A couple of DC's stop shavings followed by one full length usually does the trick.



But doesn't that open up the glue line fractionally in the centre of the join on one side if the two edges aren't square to their respective faces? 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jul 2007)

mr":194o7802 said:


> Paul Chapman":194o7802 said:
> 
> 
> > PS I agree about the fractional concave bit. A couple of DC's stop shavings followed by one full length usually does the trick.
> ...



Trust me - it works :wink: The cramps pull up the centre concave bit (and it's only fractional). As for the "squareness", as long as the boards have been jointed together (including the stop shaving bit), even if the angle varies along the length of the board, it will all add up to 180 degrees when they are put together.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul

PS before you start the planing, square a pencil line near each end of the boards so that you can put them together in exactly the position they were planed.


----------



## Scrit (7 Jul 2007)

engineer one":e410un0a said:


> As for engineering with wooden bits, I thought that was what working in MDF or other manufactured boards was all about :twisted:


When you are batch manufacturing that's what it turns into - hand adjustment for fit is simply too expensive in terms of time, but when you are doing it for yourself or it's a one off the converse is more true. And the other reason for getting it right with man-made boards is that they're really hard on plane irons!

The comment about having to acquire certain basic skills before moving on to machinery or more complex stuff wasn't meant to be a bitchy remark. Even in a workshop with a full array of machinery it's often quicker and easier to resort to a quick swipe with a hand plane or a small cut with a handsaw to get the fit right - but only if it's a one off - you don't want to be doing that if you are making 50 of the darned things

Oh yes, and I'm aonther one who was taught to make the jointed edge slightly concave and pull it up with the cramps. So five...

Scrit


----------



## engineer one (7 Jul 2007)

nice feed back again.
scrit i know you were not making "catty " remarks, it is chalk and cheese,
but of course as you say, you need the hand skill to understand better what you can and can't do with the machines. what i have noticed so far as i am learning is that obviosuly i am not producing such fine dust, but boy do i get a gert lot of shavings, even the very thin ones seem to build up with alarming regularity. :? 

having relearnt to use the planes i am now slightly more confident about when and where to use them. 

of course now i need to practice more with the saws. on that subject mike i noticed your article in the latest gww, so have you finished the box, and have we seen it :roll: more important did you achieve what you wanted.?

another thought, andy king is road testing the new veritas edge planes in the next issue, after his visit to the factory(jammy b****** comes to mind being paid to visit  :twisted: ) will be interesting to see his comments
on its value.

paul :wink:


----------



## Scrit (7 Jul 2007)

Paul

I've had both the Stanley and Veritas edge planes and been unimpressed with either. Possibly that's because I can achieve the same result, but with a straighter edge, using a jack plane and shooting board. I believe that the Stanley #95 was originally sold as a patternmaker's tool to apply draught to edges, hence the two holes in the "base" to take a tapered slip which will allow off 90° planing, useful if you are patternmaking but rarely used elsewhere. 

Scrit


----------



## Anonymous (7 Jul 2007)

Well that seems to have covered everything :lol: 
Except nobody has mentioned that a cambered blade is essential for squaring an edge :shock:
i.e. holding plane as per mr mike you can plane to the left a bit or to the right a bit, to take off a tapered shaving to counteract the off-square tilt revealed by your square. Or if the edge is skewed and tilts opposite ways at each end you can plane starting with one edge of the plane and moving over to finish with the other edge and straighten it in one pass (in theory).
Or if square you can plane straight down the middle

Speaking of cambered blades I've been experimenting with sharpening but before I hit on my "scary simple" system I tried some of the crazy sharpening hints which take up about half the posts on this group. I stupidly flattened my old oil-stone which had previously been beautifully hollowed out in both directions. Now it is really difficult to get a curve on my plane blades - which previously came about easily whether I wanted it or not. 
Always wanted it however - whats the point of a dead straight plane blade, or a flat stone for that matter?
I'm surprised that you can't buy a ready hollowed out stone, it would be really useful.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## mr (7 Jul 2007)

engineer one":1ynqmgjm said:


> on that subject mike i noticed your article in the latest gww, so have you finished the box, and have we seen it :roll: more important did you achieve what you wanted.?
> paul :wink:



Did you mean this one?





As you can see unfinished as yet but the theory is good. The working by eye / feel has worked out quite well. Its not a thing of beauty and never will be but its going to live in the corner and get kicked about so it doesn't need to be. The lid to make yet and the inside needs fitting out - then a lick of paint all round and I can then think about making a better one, not made from fence panels etc- which seems to be the way of these things. 
Cheers Mike


----------



## engineer one (7 Jul 2007)

nice one mike, another tuit i see.

jacob, actually we don't want to go down that route, but cambered blades are something that david charlesworth promotes a lot, and having used one of his, i can see the value.

mind you getting camber is more of a problem.
the flattening of stones though is to do with ensuring that if you do polish the back, then it needs to be flat across its width, so by deifinition does the stone. :? 

don't want to go down the sharpening slope here, it is as you say a well travelled route.

scrit, as you will see at the beginning, i was suggesting it might be a help
when starting out to use the edge type plane. i can concede readily that if you are used to and experienced with the more standard planes it becomes a moot point. however for the beginner, whatever is said learning to hand plane is still like 3d chess and aids to success are to be at least looked at and appreciated until you have gained both experience and courage :twisted: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (7 Jul 2007)

ByronBlack":24xnl3a7 said:


> There's nothing wrong in aiming for perfection. Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon, aim for the north and you might break down at Watford!
> 
> Surely as hobbyists, isn't the persuit of perfection that drives us to our next project? Rather than just trying to crank out as many 'it'll-do' projects?



"Obsessed" was the word, not "aiming". Obsession is when you lose sight of the goal and get caught up in the details, and the goal has nothing at all with "it'll do", or just getting it done. The goal (for me at least) is to produce beautiful furniture with my own hands. Having your table lip at 89 degrees instead on 90 is not sloppy and is not an "it'll do" attitude. In fact, having it at 90 won't add a damn thing, so not only won't you reach the moon, you won't achieve anything at all. Obsessing over a perfect 90 degree edge where it doesn't matter is just jointer masturbation (or foolishness if you like). In fact, in some cases, you would probably be better off without "perfection"; the top of a drawer front is quite possibly better off tipped ever so slightly inward. What does matter is that it *looks* good, and perfect jointing has very very little to do with that. Actually, "perfection", as typically pursued by engineers (and I am one), is actually probably the enemy of good aesthetics.

Now I still believe that good jointing skills are really important, and to achieve that it is definitely important to hold the plane correctly (although there is definitely more then one correct way) and use the correct methodology (and many believe there is more then one correct methodology). And when I joint (and I only joint by hand), I often aim for 90 (when I think it is appropriate), but I only obsess over it if it will really affect the outcome (ex. butt joint); otherwise I establish a working rhythm that does far more for quality then sweating over a sliver of light under the square. And, of course, I am steadily trying to learn to use hand-tool methods of construction too. Example: I am building a small, one-drawer, table. The front rails are flush with the legs in this design. So, rather then perfectly joint and size the front of the rail, I'll let it overhang a little and plane to the leg. Very visually appealing result, no perfect jointing required. Trying to perfectly joint and size the rail prior to assembly would be the power tool methodology, not the hand tool one (for fitting). OTOH, the legs had to be really well done, or it could make building pretty painful. And if the rail had a reveal instead of being flush, you would get some forgiveness on the sizing (no one cares +/- 1/32" on the reveal size), but the angle of the jointing would be pretty critical since the reveal will magnify any error. However, the correct way to get it "right", would be to joint and test in place, not joint and check with your square. When it looks good on the piece, it is good, not when it looks good on the square.

Ok ok, rambling off.


----------



## ByronBlack (7 Jul 2007)

Paul Kierstead":2vdv9vks said:


> ByronBlack":2vdv9vks said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing wrong in aiming for perfection. Aim for the stars and you might reach the moon, aim for the north and you might break down at Watford!
> ...



Feel better now?

You quite clearly noticed that I omitted the word 'obsession' for exactly the reasons that you ranted about, I was mearly stating that there was nothing wrong in aiming for perfection - obviously with the view that we won't always get there, now this discussion can all come down to a semantic picking apart of the definition of the word perfect and what that means, but lets not bother with that shall we as we are all on the same page with this one and I totally agree you. I just dared share an opinion on the matter.


----------



## engineer one (7 Jul 2007)

at the risk of being obsessive too :? 

no actually, i have found a job for the edge plane.
i have cut some corner joints on the table saw for the drawers,
and made the tonques too long. so the edge plane is ideal for 
setting them back enough. :roll: 

so another project along with the new blade cover when i get the 
acrylic sorted, is a working out how to use the height gauge on
the saw. :? 


rather like everyone i would like to be "perfick" but i agree that one problem with much engineering is that it is too perfect, with no heart.
as a railway enthusiast, i find that pre cad design had more concern for 
form as well as function. and let's not forget the greeks who invented many
of the techniques still used for making things appear tall, slim or whatever, by not having perfectly square angles. or straight columns i.e. barrels.

it is easy to aspire to perfection and ignore the beauty.
anyway back to drawer glue up  
paul :wink:


----------



## Scrit (7 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":u5ghmgy4 said:


> Except nobody has mentioned that a cambered blade is essential for squaring an edge :shock:


You're not wrong there........ I seem to recall being taught that a jack plane required a very cambered blade, whilst a smoother or a jointer required just a smidgeon of camber. The only planes which needed a straight iron and square edges were the rebate and shoulder jobbies..... This obsession with flat blades probably stems from the Japanese waterstones which started to appear in the 1970s and which are very prone to hollowing - the result is that waterstone users tend to lose sleep over how flat their stones are and be forever flattening them. 

BTW, I've just been and dug out a late 1930s Hayward book and yes, that's exactly what the great an recommends as well (cambered blades all round). One point to the traditionalists, methinks :lol: 



Paul Kierstead":u5ghmgy4 said:


> Obsessing over a perfect 90 degree edge where it doesn't matter is just jointer m******.......


I couldn't have put it better myself. Interesting (and highly amusing) turn of phrase there, Paul :lol: 

Scrit


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jul 2007)

Scrit":1oyb0vmy said:


> BTW, I've just been and dug out a late 1930s Hayward book and yes, that's exactly what the great an recommends as well (cambered blades all round). One point to the traditionalists, methinks :lol:



Although Ernest Joyce/Alan Peters in their book advocate straight blades (pages 98-99, revised edition 1987) so there is disagreement even among the Masters :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (7 Jul 2007)

Paul Chapman":9gebrvow said:


> Scrit":9gebrvow said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I've just been and dug out a late 1930s Hayward book and yes, that's exactly what the great an recommends as well (cambered blades all round). One point to the traditionalists, methinks :lol:
> ...


Doesn't always do to take the "old masters" burblings as gospel - they're only human. 
My theory is that they do things perfectly for years there own way without thinking about it, but when called upon to write a book, or just to explain what they are doing, they refer back to what they vaguely recall as the "correct" way.
In so doing they perpetuate all the myths such as the primary and secondary bevel or the flat face etc. and we never get free of them - until we in turn get to do things perfectly our own way without thinking about it, should we be so lucky.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":1uxqd6c6 said:


> Well that seems to have covered everything :lol:
> Except nobody has mentioned that a cambered blade is essential for squaring an edge :shock:



Well, I use the cambered edge approach, and have explained its use in various forums, but it's not the only way. Jim Kingshott demonstrates a different approach of taking partial width shavings using a straight blade, to achieve the desired shape via a step-wise approach, taking a final pass with the straight blade to achieve a "perfect" result. A cambered blade always leaves the edge (slightly) hollow.

BugBear


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

> A cambered blade always leaves the edge (slightly) hollow.


(Probably showing my igranuts here, but) isn't this the difference between truing and jointing? Most of my joints are just butt or scarf joints, and I go for a vacuum fit with my straight bladed #7 - if I can't raise a piece 6" or more off the bench by placing its mate on top and pulling up sharply, I'm not there yet - is this achievable with a cambered blade?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jul 2007)

dunbarhamlin":1daat7nh said:


> is this achievable with a cambered blade?



Doubtful. One of the supposed advantages of corrugated sole planes is that they stop this type of suction. If that is true, given that a cambered blade would, in effect, give a corrugation, it would stop the suction effect.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (9 Jul 2007)

personal up date, finally, and very slowly, what with the grand prix, and cooking and tidying up getting in the way, made two drawers for the base of the cabinet.

will find my camera battery charger sometime this coming week, and will learn to post so the ln at least will know its true.

can't say they are pretty, but they are sturdy and work. cut the joints on the table saw, (sorry scrit i know its wrong, but needed to get them done  ) they are a kind of lock joint. rebate into the sides, and the front and back are reversed into the slots giving a pretty strong and clean joint. because of guessing, not measuring properly, the tongues were too long, so i used the edge plane successfully to remove excess. very neat :lol: 

i had already made the box for them to go into, so had to make the drawers to fit on single extension slides. used 400s, and they are in fact about 400 long, so just a little too long for the box. anyway the drawers will eventually (another tuit :? ) have false fronts.


anway i cut the drawers and made them before fitting the slides so they are too narrow.  anyway since i had a number off offcuts, i found one to put between the slides and the box walls. had to plane them down slightly, and managed to do it well and quickly with my no 6 again. so i am learning. :roll: 

anyway, this has and continues to be an interesting and useful thread. ta

paul :wink:


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

That's what I figured - thanks Paul.
Maybe an excuse for a #6? Hmmm


----------



## engineer one (9 Jul 2007)

it's certainly an excuse for going to a get together and trying them all out, if possible :lol: 

paul


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

If you can convince the NHS to put their payroll on hold because there's a Very Important Bash coming up I'll do just that


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2007)

Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere? 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (9 Jul 2007)

Alf":2q9t1boi said:


> Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?


Another reason for using a cambered blade?

Scrit


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

Hmmm, will have to do some experimenting. 

Expect you're right, though probably moot given diminutive size of my joints. Certainly all accounts of rubbed joints I've seen _do_ suggest a whisker of dishing for the surfaces. 

Though using hot hide I haven't managed to break a neck on the scarf glue line when I've tried - usually the headstock fractures 1/4" above (after considerable abuse - and these are usually necks I'm not happy with)

Steve


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jul 2007)

Alf":2fj5120a said:


> Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?



I was wondering about this myself - does it depend a bit on the glue one uses :-k I've never used animal glue myself, but where one does and uses rubbed joints where you rub them until the glue grabs, I would have thought a joint with as much suction as possible (ie dead flat surfaces achieved with a straight blade) would be better. With cold glues, used with cramps, slight hollowness wouldn't matter. But as I say, I've never used animal glue, so I'm only thinking aloud :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

As I don't make carved instruments (yet), I haven't used this, but I think the idea behind a HHG rubbed joint is that as the glue gels the very slight hollowing renders it self clamping (after all, higher gram hide glues are used to etch glass - insane amount of pulling power)


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2007)

Scrit":hffxptl9 said:


> Alf":hffxptl9 said:
> 
> 
> > Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?
> ...


S'what I was thinking, yes.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## dchenard (9 Jul 2007)

Alf":14x9fiw8 said:


> Is a vacuum join a Good Thing though? Doesn't the glue have to go somewhere?
> 
> Cheers, Alf



"Conventional wisdom" has it that the mating surfaces should be tight. Fine Woodworking has a test on glues in their latest issue and they come up with interesting results. For one, "tight" joints (ones that require persuasion to drive together) are usually stronger than snug ones, and looser joints are weaker still, although strong enough with most glues (polyurethane being the worst exception).

Although their study was done using bridle joints and not edge ones, it remains that gappy joints are weaker than tight ones. I have no data to support this, but it seems to me that a cambered joint introduces a gap just where we don't want one. Granted, the gap is small, still it's there, and I'd rather just to without a potential joint failure cause.

I might be overcautious, but when there's a better alternative available (straight, match-planed edge boards), why bother?

As for the glue, it seeps into the wood pores, there's no need for a "reservoir" for it.

Cheers,

DC


----------



## Paul Kierstead (9 Jul 2007)

dchenard":147wdxiw said:


> I have no data to support this, but it seems to me that a cambered joint introduces a gap just where we don't want one. Granted, the gap is small, still it's there, and I'd rather just to without a potential joint failure cause.



Well, there are a lot of combo's to be considered. First off, on a conventional sized edge joint (in the 3/4" ballpark), the amount of camber is _extremely_ small unless you are jointing with a scrub plane. It would normally be well under 0.001". However, if the joint is clamped, the edges will certainly crush a little and eliminate even that very small gap; if you leave a very very small hollow in both directions and clamp, you are practically guaranteed a very tight joint with a fair minimum of clamping. If you are doing a rub joint, I think the rules might change a little, although again, the hollow is extraordinarily small, so who can say. The bottom line is that it works; it is possible to over analyze it.

Traditionally you'll see a lot less joints depending on glue strength alone in positions where strength was required.


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jul 2007)

Paul Kierstead":tbqbnpwl said:


> The bottom line is that it works; it is possible to over analyze it.
> 
> Traditionally you'll see a lot less joints depending on glue strength alone in positions where strength was required.



All very true. In over 30 years I've never had an edge joint fail. But then I always use biscuits or plywood loose tongues. So whether it's skilful planing, or the biscuits and loose tongues, I'll never know. But I must be doing something right :wink: :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (9 Jul 2007)

Paul K wrote:


> possible to over analyze it.


Hmmm...my thoughts exactly. As ever, we all have our different ways of doing things and find ways that work for us. Onto our 6th page on this thread, eagerly looking forward to the 7th, 8th, 9th etc  .......note to self, must remember _not_ to fall asleep at the keyboard :roll:

Paul C - me and you the same, been doing this woodworky stuff for a _few years _ and I've never had a long edge joint fail - Rob


----------



## Scrit (9 Jul 2007)

woodbloke":181momxp said:


> ......been doing this woodworky stuff for a _few years _ and I've never had a long edge joint fail - Rob


Well the one hand planed butt joint I can recall failing was on the maple chopping block I made for my kitchen. And that lasted 25 years until it started to open at the ends, but even then it was just the one joint (out of 6 or 7). Hardly surprising that it did start to fail because it's had a fair bit of abuse and moisture over the years. Oh, and that was glued with UF glue and I seem to recall that the joints were slightly sprung as well.....

FWW concluding that a sloppy joint will fail before one that fits properly, well there's a surprise :roll: 

Scrit


----------



## engineer one (9 Jul 2007)

surely what everyone is forgetting is the strain imposed by clamping/cramping the board edges. :roll: 

as i read the bits and pieces, not least DC 'imself guvnor' he suggests that the clamping process flattens the middle "hollow" section, and as has been said it is a miniscule amount :? 

paul :wink:


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2007)

Hmm, I just had a thought. If you don't get your blade edge _absolutely square_ and then match plane, don't you end up with risking (miniscule) gaps on the edges of the joint? Tempting to bring up the argument that a theoretically square edge is probably actually a bit cambered too, but not my thing so I'll leave that to anyone who wants to argue it. Anyway given that, isn't it arguably easier and less risky doing individual edges with a cambered blade 'cos not only don't you have to worry about the mythical idea of an absolutely square edge on your iron but also any gap caused by the camber should end up _within_ the joint and thus unseen?

Speaking for myself it doesn't bother me either way 'cos I don't worry about the camber introducing a gap of anything but theoretical difficulty, but for those folks who _do_ worry about it I thought I'd just, well, add to your worries... Ah. Erm... Sorry, didn't really think this through perhaps... #-o

Cheers, Alf

P.S. Re: falling asleep. We could just sum this thread up as "if it works, it's right" - but then you could do that with most discussions and the forum would get awfully quiet...


----------



## Scrit (9 Jul 2007)

I've come to the conclusion that making the decision to move to machining the joints (with a dead flat blade) was a good thing after all. Less to fret about, methinks..... :roll: 

Scrit


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2007)

Scrit":3cl1juwn said:


> a dead flat blade


"dead flat"?! BB'll be all over you like a rash for calling anything dead flat. I mean for heaven's sakes, Scrit, there are engineers present. 8-[ 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (9 Jul 2007)

What should I say - straight and flat within acceptable engineering tolerances? :wink: 

Scrit


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jul 2007)

Alf":1wx24869 said:


> isn't it arguably easier and less risky doing individual edges with a cambered blade 'cos not only don't you have to worry about the mythical idea of an absolutely square edge on your iron but also any gap caused by the camber should end up _within_ the joint and thus unseen?



I think the main difficulty with planing the boards separately is making the edge of both boards exactly 90 degrees to the side. Planing them together completely does away with this problem. By comparison, I think honing the edge of a blade straight (it doesn't have to be absolutely square with the side because you can adjust it with the lateral adjusting lever) is a doddle.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Nick W (9 Jul 2007)

It's a fallacy that Engineering is all about accuracy. Really it's all about approximations that are good enough to be got away with. Sometimes those approximations need to be pretty accurate, sometimes, but not often. Stuff can be made to exacting tolerances, but that's not usually necessary, nor financially viable. Just because you _can _make surfaces square to within .001 of a degree and flat to within .1 of a thou doesn't mean you have to, or that you should. 

Remember people, the bad news is that it has to good enough, the good new is that it _only _has to be good enough.


----------



## pam niedermayer (9 Jul 2007)

What's happened to Jeff Gorman's site? He's even blocked the Wayback machine. I went there to pick up the link for that great page on using cambered blades, but most of the old pages are missing.

Pam


----------



## Paul Kierstead (9 Jul 2007)

pam niedermayer":380cjod6 said:


> What's happened to Jeff Gorman's site? He's even blocked the Wayback machine. I went there to pick up the link for that great page on using cambered blades, but most of the old pages are missing.



Yes, I noticed that a couple of weeks back. Very sad. I hope he chooses to put them back up at some point; I always found them a useful resource and used them fairly often.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

Match planing with a straight edge blade only requires that the abutted arris of the two boards follow a straight line. Off true, or even wind (about the center) won't affect the match. For a sprung joint, I suppose the ideal shape would be a catenary curve no deeper than a shaved smidgen.

Amusing thought - if could introduce alternating riples of extreme wind centered on the common arris, would get an interesting interlocking joint. Have seen a squared version somewhere, think, in foil or plastic components. Hmm


----------



## engineer one (9 Jul 2007)

honest guv i only wanted to plane the edges,not get into the paranormal :roll: :lol: :twisted: 

paul, who's now struggling again with dovetails see elsewhere :wink:


----------



## Skip J. (9 Jul 2007)

engineer one":2naxw1ni said:


> honest guv i only wanted to plane the edges,not get into the paranormal :roll: :lol: :twisted:
> 
> paul, who's now struggling again with dovetails see elsewhere :wink:



Hmmmnn.. I guess that would make this the "deep end"......


----------



## dchenard (9 Jul 2007)

Nick W":2dlzmdlz said:


> It's a fallacy that Engineering is all about accuracy. Really it's all about approximations that are good enough to be got away with. Sometimes those approximations need to be pretty accurate, sometimes, but not often. Stuff can be made to exacting tolerances, but that's not usually necessary, nor financially viable. Just because you _can _make surfaces square to within .001 of a degree and flat to within .1 of a thou doesn't mean you have to, or that you should.
> 
> Remember people, the bad news is that it has to good enough, the good new is that it _only _has to be good enough.



I agree, as long as we don't use this as an excuse for sloppiness... :roll: 

DC


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2007)

dunbarhamlin":1a3plrr7 said:


> snip
> Have seen a squared version somewhere, think, in foil or plastic components. Hmm


Lego? Yeeah thats a good idea.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## dunbarhamlin (9 Jul 2007)

Maybe it is time to le'go of the bone.
No, really - remember being amused by it, but can't think where (and no it wasn't stickle bricks either)
Looking along the join from one end to the other, in cross section it would first look like a scarf with the right board uppermost, transitioning to a straight butt, then scarfed with the left hand upper most and back again. Might only be practical with power though.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2007)

Alf":1al7lx40 said:


> Scrit":1al7lx40 said:
> 
> 
> > a dead flat blade
> ...



And woodworkers who've learnt enough to know what engineers think :twisted: 

BugBear


----------

