Planer/Thicknesser slightly bowing stock

[custard]

Time to get a proper long straight edge anyway, been putting it off for a while.

I appreciate that in the early days of furniture making the shopping list seems to just get ever longer, one way you can "make do" is by ripping a 250mm wide strip from a sheet of 15mm or 18mm MDF and using the original factory edge as a straight edge. It's good enough for furniture purposes and almost all machine set up purposes...plus the remaining meter of MDF is then available for jig making or veneering!

Just be careful that it is the factory edge (printed on wording's usually the give away), that it's pristine and undamaged, and that you store it like it's a ming vase.

Good luck.

 

[YorkshireMartin]

Time to get a proper long straight edge anyway, been putting it off for a while.

I appreciate that in the early days of furniture making the shopping list seems to just get ever longer, one way you can "make do" is by ripping a 250mm wide strip from a sheet of 15mm or 18mm MDF and using the original factory edge as a straight edge. It's good enough for furniture purposes and almost all machine set up purposes...plus the remaining meter of MDF is then available for jig making or veneering!

Just be careful that it is the factory edge (printed on wording's usually the give away), that it's pristine and undamaged, and that you store it like it's a ming vase.

Good luck.

Had a chuckle over the ming vase comment.

I've gone ahead and ordered a veritas straight edge. MDF (bench top) is what I'd been using to show the error in the stock. If investing £50 in a straight edge give me peace of mind for the future, it's worthwhile. Also ordered a second set of knives and contacted a local saw doctor for a quote. He can take both pairs initially and then I can rotate, which seems the sensible approach.

But you're right, I'm finding that all I seem to be doing at the moment, is purchasing! I keep telling myself it will all be worth it in the end. Just frustrating to spend the majority of time calibrating tools and machinery instead of actually producing anything.

 

[blackrodd]

I've been looking at this post with interest over time and I don't recall anyone stressing that you must also use the straight edge from corner to corner when checking too as this may show any deviations in the bed's centre's as well.
Blade checking and setting can be by the "carry" method, a straight flat piece of hardwood is best about 2"x 1"
the cutter should "carry"the 2"x 1" mentioned between 3, or 4 mm, which you can mark in pencil, or whatever whatever distance stated in you're handbook.
As in any new pursuits wood working has several important skills to master, setting blades is just one of several.
The more often you do it, the easier it becomes, You'll probably "perfect" you're own system.
BTW, .5 of a mil is not a great amount for timber, being a natural product, it seems to have a mind of it's own sometimes
Don't try and get the accuracy of metalwork and apply it to wood, You'll never make anything!
Regards Rodders

 

[YorkshireMartin]

I've been looking at this post with interest over time and I don't recall anyone stressing that you must also use the straight edge from corner to corner when checking too as this may show any deviations in the bed's centre's as well.
Blade checking and setting can be by the "carry" method, a straight flat piece of hardwood is best about 2"x 1"
the cutter should "carry"the 2"x 1" mentioned between 3, or 4 mm, which you can mark in pencil, or whatever whatever distance stated in you're handbook.
As in any new pursuits wood working has several important skills to master, setting blades is just one of several.
The more often you do it, the easier it becomes, You'll probably "perfect" you're own system.
BTW, .5 of a mil is not a great amount for timber, being a natural product, it seems to have a mind of it's own sometimes
Don't try and get the accuracy of metalwork and apply it to wood, You'll never make anything!
Regards Rodders

Cheers Rodders.

Regarding accuracy, what would you all consider good for a table top. Fine furniture standards (which I aspire to). The top is to be 2" thick ABW with a maple center accent strip, also 2". Will be made of 5 planks edge jointed.

 

[custard]

Regarding accuracy, what would you all consider good for a table top. Fine furniture standards (which I aspire to). The top is to be 2" thick ABW with a maple center accent strip, also 2". Will be made of 5 planks edge jointed.

That's an excellent question.

In the late 70's and early 80's you started to see the growth of a style of cabinet making that was dismissed by many of the older hands as "wood engineering", with the phrase used pejoratively rather than in admiration. It's a style of making where glue lines and joints need to be invisibly tight; drawers have to be "piston fit"; backs and undersides aren't polished but they're certainly finished to a very clean standard (all the screws securing a back for example will be "clocked"), the wooden buttons securing a top are shaped and chamfered, and corner blocks have to have a 100% surface fit even on curved surfaces.

You can appreciate why some older craftsmen thought this was madness. Look at this photo collection showing the dovetails from 473 antique pieces of furniture.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_firl ... 404664767/

All of these dovetails did a sufficiently good job to hold a drawer together for a couple of hundred years. But there's no avoiding the fact that most of them look very sloppy and amateurish to the modern eye.

I'm sensing a new wave of craftsmanship starting to come through which is a bit more relaxed and pragmatic. The wood itself, or the design itself, is starting to take precedence over the constructional niceties. However, I was apprenticed to the "wood engineering" standard, and I find it very difficult to lower my standards, even though I know full well that it's often commercial folly.

So, to get back to your question...it depends.

Personally I'd say you have to aim for perfection with every piece, and there's no failing, no matter how small, that can be knowingly tolerated. But I think there's probably a more sensible middle way which might say something like the Walnut/Maple top is clearly the "money shot", so that needs to have absolutely gap free joints with extremely fine glue lines. But you could reasonably be granted more license in, say, the jointing of the apron rails to the legs, and one or two small gaps could be considered tolerable.

By the way, a 50mm thick top is truly massive. There's a risk it might look like Fred Flintstone furniture rather than fine furniture, would 30mm be possible? Another thought is alternating broad boards of pale and dark timber might make it resemble a pedestrian crossing and be a bit too in your face; you could joint in a 3mm thick Maple veneer between each Black Walnut board for a more restrained pinstripe effect. Hey, just my thoughts, you're the one who has to live with it so yours is the only opinion that counts.

Good luck!

 

[wcndave]

I could be talking rubbish here, and no one else has mentioned this, so I probably am, however I found that when I put the cupped sides or bowed ends down, which i felt offered better stability, and less likely to end up with the board thickness not well used, I never got a a really flat surface.

The attached shows a very exaggerated version, I think the picture shows that you always get bowing this way up.

I started doing both cup and bow with the concave side up, and if you make a good deep pass on the first go, it seems to work out much better in the end.

I don't know if this is the "proper" way, however it works for me.

 

[blackrodd]

Having been machining timber for some time, With the hollow side down, as you have drawn so well, I would "drop" the piece in the middle and plane away the end, turn it round and repeat.
Planing the rounded middle section out, as you mentioned is probably safer
What we must not miss here is the fact that when buying timber for a job, we really ought to pay attention to the lengths required and how the selected timber will yield the best and straightest timber, as you are experiencing, the tops are really important and need, sometimes, that bit extra in quality.
I personally don't think you should do this "dropping on"yourself as it means fiddleing around with the guard sometimes with the planer running, and also planing, on occasions, large pieces of timber, against the grain.
Personally, if I were a beginner I would make stuff for the garden, using recycled timber where possible, honing the skills and just getting familiar and understanding the straightening out the wood and various joints.
As you seem to be at another stage, just keep repeating and getting better at what you are doing.
Regards Rodders

 

[YorkshireMartin]

Regarding accuracy, what would you all consider good for a table top. Fine furniture standards (which I aspire to). The top is to be 2" thick ABW with a maple center accent strip, also 2". Will be made of 5 planks edge jointed.

That's an excellent question.

In the late 70's and early 80's you started to see the growth of a style of cabinet making that was dismissed by many of the older hands as "wood engineering", with the phrase used pejoratively rather than in admiration. It's a style of making where glue lines and joints need to be invisibly tight; drawers have to be "piston fit"; backs and undersides aren't polished but they're certainly finished to a very clean standard (all the screws securing a back for example will be "clocked"), the wooden buttons securing a top are shaped and chamfered, and corner blocks have to have a 100% surface fit even on curved surfaces.

You can appreciate why some older craftsmen thought this was madness. Look at this photo collection showing the dovetails from 473 antique pieces of furniture.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_firl ... 404664767/

All of these dovetails did a sufficiently good job to hold a drawer together for a couple of hundred years. But there's no avoiding the fact that most of them look very sloppy and amateurish to the modern eye.

I'm sensing a new wave of craftsmanship starting to come through which is a bit more relaxed and pragmatic. The wood itself, or the design itself, is starting to take precedence over the constructional niceties. However, I was apprenticed to the "wood engineering" standard, and I find it very difficult to lower my standards, even though I know full well that it's often commercial folly.

So, to get back to your question...it depends.

Personally I'd say you have to aim for perfection with every piece, and there's no failing, no matter how small, that can be knowingly tolerated. But I think there's probably a more sensible middle way which might say something like the Walnut/Maple top is clearly the "money shot", so that needs to have absolutely gap free joints with extremely fine glue lines. But you could reasonably be granted more license in, say, the jointing of the apron rails to the legs, and one or two small gaps could be considered tolerable.

By the way, a 50mm thick top is truly massive. There's a risk it might look like Fred Flintstone furniture rather than fine furniture, would 30mm be possible? Another thought is alternating broad boards of pale and dark timber might make it resemble a pedestrian crossing and be a bit too in your face; you could joint in a 3mm thick Maple veneer between each Black Walnut board for a more restrained pinstripe effect. Hey, just my thoughts, you're the one who has to live with it so yours is the only opinion that counts.

Good luck!

I enjoyed reading your post, thanks for taking the time to write it custard.

I think the shift towards visual perfection has been influenced by precision offered in mass production. Take a sideboard from Argos. Even at that level, it will be flat, square, perfectly jointed with no gaps and it might cost, what, £100 at most. If everything a person sees around them has similar attributes, it's fair to expect they would want it from a handmade item. If I really think about the association of handmade and quality, the two don't gel, when a machine gets things perfect every time and a human craftman is inherently faliable. No. I believe the difference is in the quality of materials, the knowledge in timber selection, the fact that you can customise the design, amongst other things.

I can't speak for anyone else but the reason I am interested in woodworking, is because after years of creating, I never actually produced anything I could feel. Programming has its own rewarding aspect, but to actually retire to the lounge after a day working with wood, is a different feeling altogether.

I digress.

The table top is the money shot, but I purposefully selected strongly figured walnut as my wife prefers a more rustic style. The look I'm going for is modernist european, but with the attention to detail of truly fine furniture of the English school. Due to the figure of the walnut, invisible jointing isn't going to be possible. I'm not experienced enough with timber selection to make that possible. I have all on getting stuff flat..lol

The boards wont be alternated dark/light. The accent board will be in the center only, running along the length with a straight grain to accentuate the length of the table. This will carry over to the seating. A table runner, if you will. I hope it works as I think it might.

Love the idea of a veneer between the boards, I'll steal that in due course.

 

[YorkshireMartin]

I could be talking rubbish here, and no one else has mentioned this, so I probably am, however I found that when I put the cupped sides or bowed ends down, which i felt offered better stability, and less likely to end up with the board thickness not well used, I never got a a really flat surface.

The attached shows a very exaggerated version, I think the picture shows that you always get bowing this way up.



I started doing both cup and bow with the concave side up, and if you make a good deep pass on the first go, it seems to work out much better in the end.

I don't know if this is the "proper" way, however it works for me.

I've never tried that, do you use pressure to flatten the boards on the way across? That would take some serious skill to get right I'd imagine?

Another method I think, is if the stock exceeds the length of the table and is bowed, to place the ends downward and do one end, then flip the board and do the other. Think that is an old school method. (Edit: Exactly what Rodd said basically..)

 

[YorkshireMartin]

Having been machining timber for some time, With the hollow side down, as you have drawn so well, I would "drop" the piece in the middle and plane away the end, turn it round and repeat.
Planing the rounded middle section out, as you mentioned is probably safer
What we must not miss here is the fact that when buying timber for a job, we really ought to pay attention to the lengths required and how the selected timber will yield the best and straightest timber, as you are experiencing, the tops are really important and need, sometimes, that bit extra in quality.
I personally don't think you should do this "dropping on"yourself as it means fiddleing around with the guard sometimes with the planer running, and also planing, on occasions, large pieces of timber, against the grain.
Personally, if I were a beginner I would make stuff for the garden, using recycled timber where possible, honing the skills and just getting familiar and understanding the straightening out the wood and various joints.
As you seem to be at another stage, just keep repeating and getting better at what you are doing.
Regards Rodders

I'm finding the wood selection to be the most difficult of all jobs associated with furniture that I've tried so far. Point of note, I have not yet actually glued up a table top. Next stop..cauls and clamps.

Regarding materials, it is incredibly daunting to walk into a merchants for the first, or even tenth time and dig through a huge pile of expensive timber. I've asked to use a block plane to sample, all merchants (3) that I've tried have declined. One said nobody had ever asked before. I found that odd. Lengths and widths I considered carefully before purchasing, but ended up at the merchants towards the end of the day and as it turns out, one of the boards has a very large knot at one end. Fortunately, despite some break out on what will be the under side anyway, it's held together.

I'm a beginner, I just like to push myself. I think, as someone said earlier in the thread, I might be going a bit overboard on accuracy but I suppose even that is part of the learning process.

I just wish I had someone who could glance at what I'm doing and say yey or ney. Since taking up this hobby, I find myself fit to bursting with questions. If anyone is local to Pontefract, knows their onions and fancies a cuppa, I'm all ears. Might even throw in a hobnob. :lol:

 

[wcndave]

I started doing both cup and bow with the concave side up, and if you make a good deep pass on the first go, it seems to work out much better in the end.

I don't know if this is the "proper" way, however it works for me.

I've never tried that, do you use pressure to flatten the boards on the way across? That would take some serious skill to get right I'd imagine?

Another method I think, is if the stock exceeds the length of the table and is bowed, to place the ends downward and do one end, then flip the board and do the other. Think that is an old school method. (Edit: Exactly what Rodd said basically..)

As Rodd said, it does mean sort of dropping the piece on, and as you get closer to flat, that means it will impact the blade.

Also I think you can approach flat, however you'll always have the end curving away off the end of the outfeed, if it's longer than the planer.

The method I use, I am sure I read somewhere, as I was surprised, it feels more intuitively stable especially with cup, to have the concave side down.

So if I have a board with any cup or bow (so all of them), concave side up, I push down in two places say 1/3 from each end, or 50cm apart max (depending on board length), and run that through on a decent depth (based also on how much width of material is removed, can't do 4mm on a 30cm wide board...unless it's cupped so that I will only take say 5cm width cut)

I typically aim for 3mm. That will in 99% of cases create enough of a flat surface that the next passes can all be done with a nice 1mm odd depth, with pressure on outfeed only, standard technique etc etc....

Whereas if you create the tobboggan rails effect of concave side down, and you got 2 very narrow strips on each side, I would end up with one side narrower than the other, and difficulty getting warp / bow out at the same time as the cupping.

It's not difficult at all unless the board is very badly bent, and say has 1cm deviation, but then I tend to get out a scrub plane and get the worst of it off by hand.

One can end up tilting one way or the other, but it's generally not hard to find the middle balance for one pass.

No idea where I read this, but as it works for me, I'm sticking with it ;-)

OP, when someone mentioned gluelines, I think they meant that there should be no visible gaps in a table top. Of course you will be able to see where the grain does not match up, that's different. PS try to align the grain so you can plane it. If you have boards with grain running in opposite directions, you will get tear out whichever way you plane the top.

I must admit I've been woodworking now many years, and the thought of hand planing a walnut top for a nice table is quite daunting. The first major flat (ish) surface I tried to handplane was my workbench last year, and that was because I knew the WAF didn't give two hoots about it...

Good luck, and post us some WIP pictures!