Planer Carriages

[reible]

In one of the hi-jacked threads some one ask about this subject and while I don't have the shopsmith planer and have no idea if this is useable with it I'm posting this anyway, just because it may help some of you.

The first question was in reference to a magazine article which I have not seen....... Maybe this will be the same general information or maybe it will be different, you tell me.

Another question was if anyone used this method... well same problem again as above but if it is what I think it is then the answer is yes, it is a common practice.

Still with me? If not keep reading because we are getting to the goods now.

"Lunch box" planers are interesting tools but often not understood or used for all the purposes they can be. As owners know the rollers have strong springs which will flatten wood as it passes under the cutters, and as you know the wood returns to what ever bow, twists, cups, and combinations it had before it was processed.

So how do you attempt to correct the crooked stock? No don't answer that because that is another thread.... The subject here is how is it done with a planer.

In steps the planer carriage, or maybe you call it something else??? What it is to a lot of people is a way to deal with how to get that first side of the wood flatten so the other side can be trued and finished.

You can use 3/4" MDF or flat plywood (I have used MDF) to make one or more of these. First it needs to be longer then the work piece you have so if you are doing shorter pieces this works better then when they are longer then say the standard 8' length (do to weight and support issues of the carriage). The width needs to be less then the width of the planer capacity (da?). You add a thin wood strip across the width of the carriage as a stop (note: when making any of these sorts of project use brass hardware... note NOT brass plated but real brass in case one of the knives accidentally hits it.)

Now comes the fun part. Set your stock on the carrier with one end against the stop and the concave side facing down. You then add strips, spacers and shims to keep the stock from rocking and to keep the planer rollers from distorting it. You can use tape to hold pieces under the stock in place, wedges and shims should be screwed down. The stock itself might require some counter sunk screws in oposite corners to hold it in place or you can add some more stop blocks or stop blocks with small protruding nails... Do what ever it takes to make sure the stock is stable.

Once you are sure things are ready on the carriage it is time to start planing. With the stop to the back take light cuts until the whole side of the stock is flat and true, then with one side done the other side of the stock is just done like normal.

You may find that some stock is not worth doing this way due to just how bad its condition is..... look at it, is it so bad that when you finish making it flat you will not have enough thickness left for the project??? It doesn't mater what method is used this is always an issue.

If enough of you are interested we can over things like doing tapers, doing small or irregular pieces, bevels, and maybe even doing edges........ or how about maybe an extension table???

Ed

[Bruce]

Another thing to remember is that if you are worried about losing too much thickness, rip the board into narrower pieces. They will have less twist and thus won't require as much planing to straighten. You can then glue them up into a panel if needed. The bonus is the glued up panel will be more stable than a solid wood panel of the same size.

[charlese]

The first question was in reference to a magazine article which I have not seen....... Maybe this will be the same general information or maybe it will be different, you tell me. ...

Another question was if anyone used this method... well same problem again as above but if it is what I think it is then the answer is yes, it is a common practice....

If enough of you are interested we can over things like doing tapers, doing small or irregular pieces, bevels, and maybe even doing edges........ or how about maybe an extension table???

Ed

Yeah, Ed - We can talk about this stuff. Why not?

Yes, I read through the article you mentioned. (using a sled and shims to plane a twisted piece of stock) Can't remember if they discussed warped stock. I Take 8 woodworking Mags and sometimes have to do library type research to find certain articles. I will be glad to look this up if you want.

No, I haven't tried this method. Usually I'll just cut up a larger deformed piece in order to get a usable piece. Yes, I have a BIG pile of cutoffs and scrap.

[reible]

OK I see we need to get to see why one would not want to slice a nice piece of wood into small strips........ now I know I can't be the only woodworker out there who knows why, so lets here from a few of you. In fact some of you will have ideas I don't even know about.

Hint: if you always work with straight grains you might not know about this.


Ed

[reible]

It looks like no one knows why or people are not interested in this subject but I never let things like that stop me from going on with posts.

If you happen to get some recovered wood out of an old barn, from the bottom of some river.... well where ever.... the old growth wood could well have nice widths and you might want to take advantage of that in your construction and finish. Since this is most likely a limit supply why waste any more then necessary as saw dust?

This leads into another reason.... wood can have patterns and figures that just are to pretty to have cut in to strips and glued up. Some grain patterns of wood will end up looking like you need to paint them or hide them under masking stains if you cut them in to strips.

How about quartersawn wood.... very stable as it is but even it can have some stresses which leads to some minor deformities. Since it is so stable why cut it into strips.

I personally have a dislike for glue lines when I do a clear finish, which at this point in my woodwooking life is about all I do. Some times I have to live with it but a lot more times I can work around the need.

OK now you have at least a few more ideas from which to work.

Ed

[reible]

How about if we talk about another use of the planer... as a reminder I don't have a shopsmith unit so I can not say how well this works with this unit.

This post is about the planer carriage for doing tapers... that is when you taper (vary) the woods thickness along its length. You start with the same basic idea from before, you make a carriage just a little longer then the material you want to taper. This time you add wedge shaped pieces cut to the same taper you want in your finished workpiece and add them to the carriage. For a taper the strips are placed front to back in the same direction as the feed. In some cases you can just get away with the strips but often it is better to add a sub-base so to speak on the tapered strips. Like in the previous case you will need to add a stop strip and maybe some side support strips to keep the workpiece from moving around, or even cleats.

Once the workpiece is safely mounted you can pass it through the planer taking small cuts. It seems best to start with the side which is highest going into the planer first (this will result in this being the thinest part of the work piece).

Bevels are done the same way except that you have the the height change happen to side to side.

I know some pictures would help but it is still to cold to do much in the shop so if you are having trouble with a mental picture ask some questions.....

Ed

[charlese]

"... why waste any more then necessary as saw dust?

This leads into another reason.... wood can have patterns and figures that just are to pretty to have cut in to strips and glued up. Some grain patterns of wood will end up looking like you need to paint them or hide them under making stains if you cut them in to strips.

How about quartersawn wood.... very stable as it is but even it can have some stresses which leads to some minor deformities. Since it is so stable why cut it into strips.

I personally have a dislike for glue lines when I do a clear finish, which at this point in my woodwooking life is about all I do. Some times I have to live with it but a lot more times I can work around the need.
Ed

O.K. Ed! I'll take the bait!

Lets first talk about glue lines. I need to say that properly done glued joints do not display a glue line!
One can enhanced the (desired) grain effect of many of my pieces by selecting, and trimming, also ripping boards then putting them back together to form a grain pattern that is altered, but better than straight from the tree. Also these pieces are straighter and flatter than the original boards. I've given my grandson a challenge to find where boards have been glued up. In other words; Where are the glue lines? Most of the time when he can find them, it is because of a color change on part of a board rather than a surface grain change.- - And he has to look in order to find any changes.
Grain matching is one part of glueing table tops and pannels that is often forgotten by hobby woodworkers, but really, it is just as important as a smooth glue surface. Grain matching is much of the reason to cut workpieces out of larger boards. Sometimes you have to angle cut the board in order to get the right workpiece. The triangular leftovers from this type of cutting is not waste! These are cutoffs. There is a big difference!

I too, prefer clear finishes. I use red oak in my furniture projects, but have used oak plywood pannels sometimes. In my latest project, which is a Corner Display Cabinet I didn't want to use plywood for the two back pannels of the top half because I thought I could make better grain than a plywood flitch.(or from a plywood lathe). So-----bought some 8" red oak boards - ripped them to 3 5/8" - planed the edges to 3.5" - resawed to 3/8" - planed to 1/4" and shiplapped 1/4 inch. Assembled, these pieces make up two 19" by 39" pannels. I was right! These pannels have a better visual effect than a sterile plywood pannel.

Here is why I love quartersawn oak: THE RAYS! They are only displayed in radial faces. That really is the only reason.
However the rays of oak shouldn't be displayed in all parts of a piece. For example in pannels - you can have the rays displayed in the stiles and rails, but not the pannels. Or you could display the rays in the pannel but have the rails and stiles a rift grain. Don't think the grain police would come for you if you had rays showing in all parts of a furniture face, but here a change of grain pattern is more refreshing. (Must have learned this in aesthetic school)
Granted the rays of white oak are way more dramatic than red, however, white oak is more difficult for me to obtain. Also white oak lacks the deep red color that can be found in some heartwood pieces and has to be stained or dyed to some degree.

[reible]

O.K. Ed! I'll take the bait!

Hi it seems we are still not on the same page here. Are you are saying that there is never ever any reason to attempt to plane a board to keep it width... or am I'm reading that in to what you are saying......

Mind you I am not saying that there are not times to cut stock and do glue ups, either for looks like contasting laminates or for arranging patterns you find appealing or any other of a number of other reasons.

What I am saying is that there are time when woodworkers will not want to nor should they have to do all panels as glue ups........ in fact I was taught this by an old Swedish woodworking instuctor I had. You never laid a plane on its sole and you never took wide wood and cut it into narrow strips only to make it wide wood again (unless that was the only way you could do it). He always liked to take narrow boards to make wider boards from.

Lets first talk about glue lines. I need to say that properly done glued joints do not display a glue line!

This might be a bit of a case of defining a glue line... the glue line can be made to seem like it isn't there but it is... Having it hidden today does not say it will always be....... hence the term "Glue creep". This should be a separate topic so I will not go any farther on this subject.

One can enhanced the (desired) grain effect of many of my pieces by selecting, and trimming, also ripping boards then putting them back together to form a grain pattern that is altered, but better than straight from the tree.

No arguement about this... yes you can make it better sometime.

But nature also does some things which we can not improve upon... my point again is that there is a time to let it be as it is, no you can not make it better, it doen't get any better then this.

Also these pieces are straighter and flatter than the original boards. I've given my grandson a challenge to find where boards have been glued up. In other words; Where are the glue lines? Most of the time when he can find them, it is because of a color change on part of a board rather than a surface grain change.- - And he has to look in order to find any changes.
Grain matching is one part of glueing table tops and pannels that is often forgotten by hobby woodworkers, but really, it is just as important as a smooth glue surface. Grain matching is much of the reason to cut workpieces out of larger boards. Sometimes you have to angle cut the board in order to get the right workpiece. The triangular leftovers from this type of cutting is not waste! These are cutoffs. There is a big difference!

Again you make my point the glue line can be found so if you would rather call it the "joint line" then fine but yes most people will be able to find it and in some cases this is fine but not in all cases. Certain wood lend them selves to hiding the lines.... but not all

I also have no problem with doing angle cuts or pattern matching or any of the other various things that can be done, and no I do not call cut-offs waste... I do call sawdust waste cause other then a few things like for glue mixing my saw dust is waste...... I normal compost it unless I get to much.

I too, prefer clear finishes. I use red oak in my furniture projects, but have used oak plywood pannels sometimes. In my latest project, which is a Corner Display Cabinet I didn't want to use plywood for the two back pannels of the top half because I thought I could make better grain than a plywood flitch.(or from a plywood lathe). So-----bought some 8" red oak boards - ripped them to 3 5/8" - planed the edges to 3.5" - resawed to 3/8" - planed to 1/4" and shiplapped 1/4 inch. Assembled, these pieces make up two 19" by 39" pannels. I was right! These pannels have a better visual effect than a sterile plywood pannel.

Sounds like a fun project and well worth the efforts you put into it and I too would most likely have done it like you did or at least close. I'm not crazy about looks wood that comes off the lathe either, again a personal preference. (My father-in-law worked in a plywood plant it is sure interesting to see it all happening... and so fast!)

Here is why I love quartersawn oak: THE RAYS! They are only displayed in radial faces. That really is the only reason.
However the rays of oak shouldn't be displayed in all parts of a piece. For example in pannels - you can have the rays displayed in the stiles and rails, but not the pannels. Or you could display the rays in the pannel but have the rails and stiles a rift grain. Don't think the grain police would come for you if you had rays showing in all parts of a furniture face, but here a change of grain pattern is more refreshing. (Must have learned this in aesthetic school)

I have seen piece with all rays and I have to say I'm not a big fan of that, personal preference would be plain rails and the rays in the panels. (I don't know how much veneer work you have done but you can get plain sliced rather then ribbon sliced and they even have figured wood like quarter sawn oak..... back from my interest in veneer days. A lot of options out there.)

Another reason I would go with the radial cut for the panels is the difference it makes for wood movement. The big deal with radial cut lumber is the difference in shrinkage and movement compaired to the tangential cut.

Take your red oak, the % shrinkage is just 4 for radial compaired to the 8.6 of flat cut. The amount of movement do to season change (per 1% mosture change) that occurs per unit width is .0016 for radial vs .0037 for flat.

So take your 19" panels and lets say you have them sealed enough so that the MC fluctuation is say 6 seasonally.

= .0016 * 19" * 6
this gives you about a 3/16" movement.

On the other hand if you went with the flat cut
= .0037 * 19 *6
that ends up being about 27/64...... woooow

Of course the sizes and MC changes are guesses but still the point should be noted about the cut of the wood... and why you let the panels float.

Granted the rays of white oak are way more dramatic than red, however, white oak is more difficult for me to obtain. Also white oak lacks the deep red color that can be found in some heartwood pieces and has to be stained or dyed to some degree.

I hope this clears this up.... if not just trust me some people will do as you say and cut pieces up and glue them up and some of those same people will want to have an option to flatten stock without cutting it up... and I know because I am one of them.

Ed