source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
How can I fabricate a wooden cone? I need to make a wooden cone that is slightly smaller than the smallest traffic cone available commercially. My guess is that it will definitely require a table router. Is that correct and are there any other tools that would be necessary in the process. I would use a roughly 12" piece of 6x6 to carve it out of. <Q> connect them all together in an "almost cone" and sand down the edges until it's fairly conical. <S> The narrower your wedges, the more conical you'll get. <S> The angle for each wedge is easily calculated. <S> Where N is your number of wedges, 360/N gives you the inner angle. <S> From here you have a near-conical blank. <S> You can either sand down the edges or use a router jig like in this video : a spindle in a box with a router sliding on top. <S> To get a cone, you could angle the spindle. <S> Perhaps if you wanted to get fancy, you could make the spindle adjustable to make different angled cones/tapers. <S> TX Turner's comment has another good reference for a jig meant to go on a lathe which could be modified to do tapers, but I don't think it would be too difficult to fabricate something similar as a standalone contraption. <S> In short: 1: Cut a bunch of wedges from rectangular blocks. <S> If you glued them together at this stage, it would make a near-cylindrical drum. <S> 2: make a diagonal cut into each wedge to make the triangular size of the cone you need. <S> 3 <S> : Glue them together into a conical blank. <S> 4 <S> : Sand the corners down or use a router jig. <S> As I mentioned in a comment, I would not recommend trying to make a DIY lathe. <S> To me that seems like an attempt for the Darwin Awards. <A> Well the obvious choice (see my username) would be a lathe. <S> :) <S> Similar to what is done to make fluted columns, you could mount stock between revolving centers and build a trammel to hold a router that makes cuts angled to the stock. <S> e.g. <S> (Except imagine one end of the platform higher than the other to make a cone. <S> image via: http://customfurnitureandfab.com/how-to-make-fluted-or-beaded-columns <A> A similar method to Daniel B.'s would be the common scroll saw method for making stacked cones. <S> This could be adapted to a band saw with a sufficiently narrow blade. <S> Tilt your saw's table to the angle complementary to the desired angle of your cone <S> (e.g. 30° if you want a 60° slope). <S> Make a zero-radius circular cut (i.e. rotate around a fixed point) on the face of a board. <S> (This is why the blade needs to be really narrow.) <S> Because of the angle of the table, this will produce a small cone. <S> Using the base of the cone you just created as a template, scribe a circle on the same stock. <S> Without moving the saw's table, cut out the circle. <S> This will create a conical frustrum (yes, I had to look that up). <S> Use the new disk to scribe another circle and repeat until you get your full cone. <S> If you plan on staining the wood, be aware that the color will fade from dark to light between the end grain and face grain.
| If you don't have access to a lathe, you can cut a series of wedges with a band saw and/or a table saw. Technically, you wouldn't even need a true lathe, just a couple of sharpened bolts in a frame to create points about which the stock can rotate.
|
How to improve a sliding miter saw dust collection? I have a sliding miter saw with a seriously undersized dust port (1¼"). It's originally built to throw the dust in a tiny bag. When ever I make cuts, about 25% (bag) or 50% (shopvac) of the dust is collected and the rest just spread in a conical way. How can I improve dust collection so that it captures a lot more dust? Are there generic accessories available to remedy this problem? <Q> Most miter saws don't have very good dust collection. <S> You can buy or build a hood to catch the dust. <S> ( Source ) <S> ( Source ) <A> I tend to agree that compound miters have horrible dust collection design. <S> Mostly I've given up, even though I have hose connected to my dust collector. <S> My dust collector doesn't have enough static pressure and the little port tends to get clogged. <S> I'm sure that this is one tool <S> the Shop-Vac actually works much better on. <S> However, I do have one possible recommendation if you have a dust collector and the willingness to set this up. <S> There is a dust hood <S> (this one is 13" <S> x 16") <S> You can set one of these behind the saw and it should catch a much larger % of sawdust from the miter. <S> It can cover an area and the saw will be sending most of the dust right at the hood. <S> I have two of these, one for my lathe and another where I use my belt sander. <A> If you have the time to try a DIY solution, Fisher's Shop on YouTube had a different approach which doesn't require lots of space or material. <S> It mounts directly to the back fence on the mitre saw. <S> He claims some pretty high dust collection rates up in the range of 90%+. <S> Unless you have the same saw you will have to make some minor modifications but his video should serve as a good guide. <S> Reference link: <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrBaHKtz8GQ <S> Example picture:
| Some hoods can be connected to your dust collector, while others funnel the dust down into a bucket.
|
How can I attach a solid table top to perpendicular cross rails? I plan to build a coffee table following plans in Fine Woodworking. In the article, the author uses a plywood top, but I already have solid lumber that I'd like to use. Source: me, based on plans in Fine Woodworking #242 The author of the article simply screws the cross rails (blue) to the top (yellow), but for a solid top this is not ideal. How can I attach these rails to the table top in a way that allows the wood to shrink and expand with changes in humidity? <Q> Instead of simply pre-drilling a hole and screwing the screw, you can use a router to create a slot with a countersink or counterbore bit. <S> Source: <S> LeeValley <S> This slot will allow wood movement of your solid top while staying securely attached on your cross rails. <A> The wood in your top will expand and contract in one direction, while the cross braces will expand and contract perpendicular to that. <S> There are a couple of different products and techniques that would help. <S> For a set of rails like the ones in your picture, consider 'figure 8' fasteners. <S> https://www.leevalley.com/US/Garden/page.aspx?p=50311&cat=3,41306,41312&ap=1 <S> You create a shallow depression with a forstner bit or similar on the rail top, such that the figure eight fastener can rotate a bit when screwed down (not extremely tight, but not loose either.) <S> These allow expansion in two directions if done correctly. <S> Another option are oval washers like these: <S> https://www.leevalley.com/en/hardware/page.aspx?cat=3,41306,41309&p=40940 <S> They allow expansion in one direction. <A> Tabletops are often attached to the frame and aprons using tabletop fasteners such as these, which allow for some wood movement: <S> ( Source ) <S> This is what they look like installed: ( Source )
| You can use screws, but in a slightly different manner.
|
Hollowing out a piece of timber Wood, well most wood, is heavy. Is there any such thing as people ever hollowing out the inside of the wood to make the finished product lighter? For example, let's say I have a 4in. x 4in. x 8' piece of timber to make 4 desk legs out of. Instead of having four square desk legs of solid wood, could I hollow out the inside of the timber leaving only about a 1/2 inch thickness on each of the four sides? This would save wood for other projects, and accomplish making the desk lighter while hopefully still providing a pretty sturdy, un-wobbly base. What tools and method could I use to hollow out the inside of this piece of timber? <Q> Rather than hollowing out a piece of 4"x4"x8' piece of lumber, think about how to use thinner stock to come up with something that looks like 4"x4"x8'. <S> There's a long tradition of this- porch columns are the first thing that come to mind. <S> Those aren't solid wood, they're built up from smaller stock. <S> As far as the technique, that depends on the overall size of the project, your budget, your tool set, and expertise. <S> For something like table legs, you can use a locking miter bit with thinner stock to make what looks like a solid leg. <S> Think of lumber as raw stock to be cut up and put together in various ways. <S> An 8' 4"x4" would yield about 7 pieces 1/2" thick x 4" x 8' long. <S> (You lose some with the saw kerf.) <S> Four of those 7 pieces could then be split lengthwise and across the grain to make four 2" x 1/2" x 48" pieces. <S> Use a lock miter on the pieces and you'd end up with four legs, ~2" square, 48" tall. <S> And you'd have enough lumber leftover to make the skirt of a table frame. <A> If you have a table saw that can rip at least 2" deep, you could do something like this: <S> Source: <S> me Dark gray areas are waste. <S> This assumes you have a .1" thick blade. <S> Basically, you would take off 1/2" from opposite sides, then take 1/2" off from the remaining uncut sides. <S> To bring the hollowed piece back to square, you remove two blade thicknesses from the edge of each wider piece. <S> This leaves you with a decent sized "core" that can be used elsewhere. <S> If you make clean cuts and align everything well when gluing it back together you will have a piece that looks like a 4x4, but is 60% lighter. <S> To glue the pieces back together, you could just butt join them, but ideally you'd probably use a biscuit joiner to both align the pieces, and give them a little extra strength. <A> These need to have a hollow core for cabling to run through. <S> The workshop I currently work in was previously a lamp factory and they left behind a "coring" machine. <S> I don't actually know what the proper name for the machine is, but essentially it was for drilling long holes through timber. <S> If you do a google search for "long hole boring" there are a few videos and tutorials on how you might go about it. <S> Generally I think you need a lathe, and a long auger bit such as <S> this one <S> but these tools are mostly meant for drilling out narrow holes for cabling and the like. <S> Honestly I'd say if you have anything wider than a couple of inches that you need/want to be hollow, you'd be better off starting with separate pieces and gluing them together to form a box or tube. <S> You could either start with 4 pieces and glue together at right angles (with or without machined or half-lapped joints) or you could have two half pieces and groove them out in the centre to create U-shaped channels, which you'd then glue together like [ ] to create a box or tube section. <A> You would need one heck of a plug cutter to bore a core out of an 8' timber. <S> I don't know of any other tool that would hollow it without turning the center into chips, which would not be particularly useful for future projects. <S> (Except hamster cage lining, maybe.) <S> An alternative may be to resaw your timber into 9/16" thick slabs (leaving some room to plane one side to a nice finish), then assemble box sections for your legs. <S> Another option would be to taper the solid 4x4 timber, cutting material off the outside, if your goal is simply to lighten it. <S> You might also consider resawing into 4 2x2 posts and using those as your legs.
| The only time I can think of where you would actually need to hollow out a piece of wood, would be when you're making a spindle for a floor lamp.
|
How can I repair a split in a board? I am making a top for a small child's table. It is 30" square and I jointed 3 10" wide pine boards to make it. While I had it in a vise and was planing the end grain to clean up the marks left by the saw, the vise "let go" and it fell to my garage floor. The middle board suffered a small crack as a result. (The picture is a bit awkward and the angle isn't the best, but the split is on the end. The board is leaning against another one) You can see a .25" chisel next to it for size comparison. I tried getting glue [ edit: Titebond II ] in the crack and using clamps to pull it together, but it is so small I wasn't able to get it in. What is the best way to repair this? <Q> Catalog sites or local woodworking stores will likely sell a glue injector- <S> it looks like a big needle. <S> It's most often used to inject glue into chair joints. <S> If the crack is small, you may not even need to clamp it. <S> Of course, you could also turn the crack into a feature with a dutchman patch ( instructions ), like this: Image courtesy of woodworkingtalk.com <S> There was a question about the picture used to describe the Dutchman patch. <S> Related discussion about the Dutchman Patch: <S> What is the difference between a dutchman patch and a butterfly patch? <A> You didn't mention what type of glue you're trying to use for the repair, but if this is just a minor cosmetic defect it may be a nice application for CA (cyanoacrylate) glue, aka superglue. <S> It's thinner than wood glue <S> so it'll be easier to get it to seep into the crack. <S> You can use compressed air to blow the glue into the crack, or if the crack goes all the way through you can use a vacuum to pull it into the crack from the other side. <S> As with TX Turner's glue injector suggestion, it will help if you can bend or pry the crack slightly more open <S> so it's easier to get the glue in. <S> Some other options include breaking or cutting the board all the way through and gluing it back together, or adding an inlay. <S> If you go the inlay route, you could either use a butterfly inlay to strengthen the repair or if it's a really shallow crack, you could use a purely decorative inlay. <S> Or you could take a page from the turners' playbook-- <S> a common solution for repairing cracks in turned pieces is to use a liquid turquoise inlay. <S> If you do this, you'd probably want to carve out a larger channel as you would with the "solid" inlay techniques. <A> I have used the very thin CA glues such as this stuff from Titebond in the past. <S> It works very well. <S> It is about as thin as water. <S> If you plan on finishing the surface with a stain, you should probably test it first on a scrap to make sure it won't blotch. <S> Ripping down the crack and re-gluing works well also, but you lose some width from the board. <A> it is so small <S> I wasn't able to get [the glue] in. <S> Diluting slightly can help with this, then a fine brush will usually work for application. <S> You can also work the thinned glue in with the tip of a cocktail stick or bamboo skewer. <S> The best method though is to inject the glue deeper into the crack with a hypodermic needle. <S> To be honest I would probably just fill this myself because it's so fine. <S> The simplest method is to get glue into the crack and then just sand the piece lightly to mix sanding dust with the glue. <S> One pass might be enough here. <S> Although glue + sanding dust is rarely a good colour match to the wood despite what many guides say (it's nearly always darker) for a crack this fine you'll never see it on the finished item. <S> Either glueing or filling you will inevitably get some glue onto the surface of the board. <S> Once the glue has had a chance to fully dry sand further (or better, use a card scraper) to remove the surface fibres contaminated with adhesive. <S> Check for any remaining glue by dampening the area with spirits, if you see no pale stain where the glue was you've gotten it all. <S> the vise "let go" and it fell to my garage floor. <S> To prevent this in future, consider lining your vice's jaws with leather. <S> It works very well, greatly improves grip while simultaneously reduces the tendency to mar the workpiece. <A> When it is that small, you can even get a way with a little wood putty. <S> Another would be to mix a little little sawdust in some epoxy or superglue and 'patch' it, then sand when dry. <A> First take a razor blade and make a small thin sliver. <S> Use it to clean out the crack. <S> With a thin amount of Tight Bond III, work the sliver into the crack and tap it in place. <S> Never use compressed air with polyurethane or cynoacrilates!
| Use a small screwdriver to open up the crack a bit, then use the injector to get glue in there, then pull the screwdriver and let the crack close. Weight it down for about a day and then clean up with the razorblade.
|
Using green cedar for planks on a boat I am building a Swampscott Dory as per "The Dory Book" by John Gardner.What I am doing is using local wood (Red Cedar) and mills. As such, I am starting from the log, milling it, and then making my boat. Question is, how long should I wait for my planks to dry before placing them on the boat. I am not using glue (all copper clench nails and wood screws) and all the wood is cut to my liking (quarter sawn). So how long should I wait from mill to boat? Log has been sitting out for about a year, but it was a 23" diameter log. <Q> I was trying to find the answer to something else and realized there was a section in this book called, Modern Woodworking Techniques . <S> It is a conglomeration of articles from the magazine Fine Woodworking . <S> On page 124, they talk about drying your wood. <S> It says that the "old-timers" rule of thumb is a year of air drying per inch of thickness, but ultimately you'll need to use a moisture meter to periodically test a sample board. <S> Air drying will get you down to about 12% moisture content, unless you live in a very dry climate. <S> For that matter, things like humidity, temperature, drying set-up <S> (how you arrange your wood), and thickness has the most bearing on how fast your wood will dry. <S> it will take what it will take. <S> There is no real way for us to give you a speculative answer as to how long it's going to take. <S> You'll need to get a meter to tell you what the moisture content is and go from there. <A> Ok, thanks for all the contributions, but the answer seems to be almost right away. <S> I found a website that explored the historical aspects of wooden boat building. <S> What I discovered was that the chief advantages of "clinker" boats is that the wood can be relatively green when building the boat. <S> I also got a moisture meter and I am currently at 18%, down from 32% a week ago (all air dry with stickers throughout). <S> Clinker construction <A> As Paulster said, it takes time and the best way to know when you are done is to use a moisture meter. <S> While the log did some drying over the course of the year, They dry very slowly compared to boards. <S> And since you had it cut quarter-sawn the boards are going to be dryer on one side than the other because the end closer to the center will have more moisture. <S> You would have saved yourself a lot of time having it milled right away, and then waiting for the year or so to let it all dry. <S> Quite likely you have another year of waiting. <S> You can of course have it kiln dried and if you find someone with a solar kiln it could take a week or two.
| In other words, there is no set drying time ...
|
Using Tung oil over Boiled Linseed Oil I have been seeing some contested information about which oil I should use between the two. I found several sites with verbage like this one from CanadianWoodworking So I started researching and found that the information available about tung oil was often incorrect, conflicting, and/or misleading. Let’s examine and debunk some of the myths. Later in that article there is a comparison table for Tung and Boiled Linseed. General consensus is that Tung Oil is more expensive. Aside from financial aspect what are (if any) functional differences that I should consider when deciding between these 2 oils. A specific aspect I would like to hear about is the difference in finished appearance and the difference over time . <Q> Some of the contested information is probably due to manufacturers and woodworkers alike misusing the term 'tung oil' when what they mean is some combination of tung oil and another solvent and/or finish. <S> Generally, pure tung oil isn't a great finish on it's own- <S> it doesn't entirely harden, it takes a long time to not be a sticky mess, and it has to be refreshed fairly regularly. <S> That being said, boiled linseed oil (often shortened to 'BLO') is similar, except that it takes a shorter time to cure <S> /dry. <S> I've had good luck combining BLO with sanding sealer and denatured alcohol to make my own wiping finish. <A> I don't think you'd notice much, or perhaps any , difference in the finished appearance switching from BLO to tung oil. <S> This is partly going on general principles, where oils of similar types tend to give similar finish, and partly based on photos of pieces finished in both that I've seen. <S> There's no basic difference that I can perceive. <S> There could of course be a slight difference in colouring but only a direct comparison would highlight this, with wood varying naturally anyway. <S> And as a natural product each oil could vary in colour from maker to maker to begin with. <S> A specific aspect I would like to hear about is the difference in finished appearance and the difference over time . <S> Obviously you're asking about ageing characteristics here <S> but this is going to partly depend on the wood <S> it is applied to as well as the finishing regimen used (scraped finish or sanded, final grit used, number of coats applied, how much buffing was done and so on). <S> These variables may have as much to do with differences in reported performance as the different qualities of the oils themselves. <S> The main practical difference concerning application is that it takes more coats of tung oil to achieve the same surface gloss as fewer coats of BLO will give (source: Bob Flexner). <S> So it's possible that some of the improved performance accorded to pieces finished with tung oil are due to a higher number of coats, not to the material itself being superior. <S> I'm theorising here, I don't know. <S> I have read numerous times that tung oil is more weather-resistant than BLO <S> I've never read any actual data, and without it I don't believe we can trust that information. <S> Note: saying tung oil may also be a bit too general. <S> Other than pure, "raw" tung oil there are some modified versions (partially polymerised to improve drying time). <S> Additionally care must be taken to distinguish between actual tung oils and a "tung oil finish" which may contain no tung oil at all; in fact these can be little different to products sold under the name Danish oil (that is: a blend of oil with resin or varnish, with additional spirits). <A> I've used both BLO and Tung Oil. <S> I prefer Tung Oil because its adds a warmth to the wood that BLO does not. <S> I find BLO tends to make the wood look a little muted (at least on Walnut). <S> When I get home, I can take a picture of BLO and Tung Oil side by side. <S> In the mean time, you might want to check out Bob Flexner's book . <S> As I recall, he compares the two side-by-side on several different species. <S> If I remember right, he concludes that BLO tends to darken more than Tung Oil (but TO adds warmth that BLO does not). <A>
| The biggest difference in aging between the two you'll find is that BLO will darken over time, whereas pure tung oil won't.
|
How do you reliably set all your jointer knives to the same, correct height? I have an older delta model jointer, and I always struggle to get all three knives consistently set at the same height. I've tried a large magnetic jig that purports to help, but.. it really doesn't- it gets in the way of tightening down the nuts that hold the knife in place, so the knife tends to move when you slide the magnet out of place (or you bump it with the wrench and have to start over.) I've also tried the distance per rotation thing with a piece of tape and a straight edge, but it becomes hard to keep the front and back side of the blade at the same height that way (they tend to rock in the middle.) Anyone have tips or a jig to help keep your planer knives lined up? <Q> This article has a nice tutorial about how to set the jointer knives. <S> It covers 2 styles of heads. <S> First is the style with jackscrews (labeled A in the image): <S> With those you can adjust each screw until the blade is set correctly (as with the straightedge method). <S> The second style is the one with pushback springs. <S> With those there should also be a jig you hold against the head that holds the knives at the right height and provides enough space for you to tighten the screws. <S> all images from the linked article <A> There are a number of tricks for setting these. <S> One I've seen: put a piece of wood across the outfeed table and the head, hand-rotate the head, mark how far the wood was dragged by a single blade, adjust until they all drag it the same distance, repeat for other end of blade, iterate. <S> Or of course you can get a dial indicator. <S> Or build/buy a magnetic jig that holds blade at a known location until you can lock it in. <S> Or ... Haven't tried to compare these <S> so I have no idea about relative accuracy vs hassle vs price. <A> I have an old Delta like that, too. <S> Next I rotate the cutter head backwards so that the blade get pushed down by the board, and apply pressure until it's the right height. <S> I check the result using the straightedge method. <S> It usually takes a few attempts to get all 3 blades aligned. <S> Bolt torque is really important with this method, so try to loosen the bolts very precisely. <S> The difference between "too tight" and "too loose" is really only a few degrees.
| What I do is raise one blade up a few millimeters and loosen the bolts a bit, then place a flat hardwood board over outfeed table and push down.
|
What wood is best for engraving? I'm looking at getting into wood engraving for print, something like this: EDIT - I've just found out that the person that created this bird recommends birch plywood for beginners. Is this a good starting wood? And I wanted to buy some engraving tools. I know you can get electric engravers but I prefer the look of the manual tools, they have a nicer charm to them. Is there a preferred wood type when it comes to engraving? And would there be softer wood types used for manual tools as it will be harder to engrave over the electric tools? As I'm only getting into engraving for fun I would prefer cheaper wood types if possible. <Q> Birch plywood has a huge advantage for a beginner in that it is very cheap! <S> If it's been recommended to you, I'd suggest giving it a try and seeing how you get on. <S> It's worth noting that engraving seems to be done on the end-grain of the timber, presumably as this is where the timber will easily hold fine detail. <A> Here in the US, Basswood seems to be preferred. <S> That is what they use at in the classes at the local Woodcraft. <S> It is relatively soft and light, but tight grained enough to hold detail well. <A> On the other end of the spectrum, you can try oak too. <S> It's hardness on one hand allows good details, <S> but it's <S> coarse grain lends carvings a texture that you don't get using other woods. <S> It's certainly not all-purpose, but maybe something to keep in mind. <S> Likewise, a species like mahogany would be a medium - coarseness grain. <S> Other good fine grained species are aspens/poples... <S> Similar to basswood if you can't find that. <A> How to Identify Prints (Bamber Gascoigne} is a book that describes methods of making prints; in particular types of woodcuts, wood engravings; to determine what wood is right for the type of work you wish create it would help to know the possibilities. <S> The image you show in your question appears to me to be better identified as a wood cut for which the birch plywood might serve, not as well for a wood engraving where an end grain is the norm, though early wood engravers often used edge grain for their work. <S> Wood engravers tools are very specialized and are also described in the book. <A> Just to toss out the alternative: linoleum blocks are cheap and easy to cut. <S> You don't get the entertainment/practice of working with and against wood grain, but on the other hand they're (close to) type-height and thus easy to lock up in a letterpress. <S> I did this one many years ago with nothing more than a pocketknife. <S> Apologies for the slightly blurry photo; the edges are actually quite sharp and captured more detail than I expected. <S> Actual size of the block is about 3x4 inches. <S> I'm showing it both on white, and textured grey, paper; the ink is Delft Blue. . <A> In the Europe there is an old tradition for wooden cookie and sugar-ware moulds. <S> It dates from the 13th century. <S> Details can become very fine. <S> Materials applied include: <S> Easy: <S> birch <S> Hard: fruit tree (like pear or apple) blackthorn beech ash teak walnut. <S> References (Dutch!): http://www.goeievraag.nl/eten-drinken/koken-recepten/vraag/373532/houtsoort-gebruikt-speculaasplank http://www.scriptiebank.be/sites/default/files/8d00282b0fe6e797c482ab19555b90fd.pdf
| I've had a bit of a search and a few different places seem to suggest that Boxwood is the best wood for engraving, however I'm sure that there are a number of viable choices, and certainly for beginners who aren't trying to achieve very fine detail then any wood which will hold a good edge (so most moderately dense hardwoods) should be fine.
|
How to scorch to darken a part of a piece of wood and not the other? I intend draw a dark line 50mm / 2" large using a blowtorch on a piece of pine wood, but how to have a nice & clean line border ? I thought of using sacrificial wood pieces or aluminium sheets as flame barrier but honestly I've no idea where to start. I don't need the line to be black but just darker. I've seen a "hot sand" trick but it's effective for edges only. I'm targeting a rustic style, but I've no metal bars big enough to heat. <Q> bowlturner's answer is correct, and will probably give you the results you are looking for. <S> But it inspired me to experiment, mostly to see how sharp an edge I could get. <S> Hardwood Guide As you can see, just setting down a piece of hardwood makes an obvious, if not sharp, line. <S> The main problem is getting into the corner. <S> I tried to only scorch the pine, so I couldn't wait for the flame to burn the inside edge. <S> Metal Guide <S> This time I slowed down and concentrated on getting the flame into the corner. <S> I also used a steel guide, but I didn't see a difference from the hardwood guide. <S> As you can see, this one is quite well done (burnt), but it does have a sharper edge. <S> Masking Tape <S> Not great, but not as bad as I thought. <S> The heat melts off the adhesive <S> and it's easy to burn through the tape a little bit, but it made an okay line. <S> I cleaned off the adhesive with mineral spirits. <S> Routed Recess <S> I also tried routing out a shallow area to receive the burning, with the intention of planing off the high spot. <S> This didn't work though, because it creates another inside edge that the flame can't reach. <S> But if you could somehow get the burned part right up next to a freshly-planed edge, I'm confident that this would give you the cleanest, sharpest edge possible. <S> Source for all images: me <A> I am assuming you are using the torch to 'scorch' the wood and not really burn it. <S> I think that clamping another piece of wood as a "sacrificial piece" onto the line should work just fine. <S> Doing this light enough <S> and you can reuse the one board over and over again. <S> if it is getting to burnt than run it through the jointer to square it up again. <S> Using a hardwood for the boarder piece it will last longer and hold up better, but another piece of pine can work too. <S> a piece of metal might need to be thicker to work as well so that it doesn't transfer the heat to the wood giving you a wavy line under it. <A> If you only need to present a darker wood, but not charred or completely black, aluminum foil or aluminum tape should work well. <S> Aluminum is great because it conducts heat very well, spreading the heat harmlessly across a larger surface of metal. <S> wide aluminum tape should give you a very sharp line without the problems <S> that the corners of higher templates present as described in lars' experiments.
| If you are careful, masking and other tapes may work as well - the heat goes towards burning the tape and not the wood, protecting the wood underneath.
|
How should I secure my treehouse to the tree? This summer I plan to start a small tree house for kids project on a old and big but living tree (Albizia julibrissin). My first idea is to build a frame around branches without using screw in tree. The frame kind of capture branches. Am I right to preserve the tree from being drilled for screw ? Picture below shows principle for one branch but project will use as many as possible. To illustrate @bowlturner's answer: <Q> The design you are working on will work. <S> Remember trees grow, no matter what. <S> One thing I would point out the cross pieces you have connecting the two boards against the limb, probably shouldn't be wood. <S> I would go with steel bolts. <S> I would be afraid most wood would 'rot' or weaken relatively quickly against the bark, and it would have the bulk of the weight. <S> On top of that the branch can 'easily' grow around a steel bolt, but the wood might be more likely to 'girdle' the branch. <S> The big thing your design has over nails or screws is that the branches can move without causing sheer forces against the nails or screws. <A> Your idea seems good at first, but I'm not sure it's the best idea long-term. <S> For one, any movement caused by wind or by anyone moving around in the treehouse is going to cause the contact points from your brackets to rub against the bark. <S> Over time, I could see this potentially damaging the tree more severely than bolts. <S> Keep in mind that any part that's attached to the tree will also incidentally pull on parts of the tree that are attached to other parts of the treehouse. <S> I would try to avoid attaching to any smaller limbs, and try to limit your attachment points to the trunk and perhaps a couple very large limbs that don't sway very much in the wind. <S> On the flipside, if your brackets don't damage the tree, they could restrict the tree's growth. <S> If they don't damage the tree or restrict its growth, then as the limbs grow thicker in diameter they could move the treehouse's foundation and start to deform the treehouse, though this would take a very long time. <S> Family Handyman published a great article on building a treehouse, taking into account the tree's growth, using floating brackets , and many other practical considerations. <A> If you really don't want to screw into the tree. <S> Maybe consider a post structure that is built around the tree branches. <S> Then you would have the feel of it being in the tree but it would not be dependent on the tree.
| Screws would work too.
|
What are the techniques to seal or remove sap? For starters this is not green-wood. I have been cutting up some 2x4 into small blocks for painting and decoration. The block were cut and then sanded. About 3 days later I had the time to paint them. Today I noticed that some sap has seeped through. The wood was not fresh (it was from a pallet fyi.) but the cuts opened up some sections of pith it would seem. Is there anything different I could have done to have either forced the sap out or a better sealant before I painted. <Q> This is actually a very common occurrence in woods like pine and fir. <S> Many would suggest that you do not use these woods for reasons just like this one. <S> If you persist then heat is the solution. <S> Note: this is based on untreated wood. <S> Not all lumber is kiln dried and even if it was you cannot guarantee the temperature it was dried at (or duration for that matter). <S> Sap typically "sets" when heated 160°F/71°C. <S> So if you see sap seeping out then you need to heat it up. <S> You need to clean it before you do any finishing (paint/stain etc). <S> Mineral spirits is suggested as it is not likely to damage the wood. <S> Some woods can have the sap coming out from everywhere. <S> It is not ideal since the effort and cost associated with saving some pine is most likely not practical. <S> Many people have had success properly sealing it with shellac just like GLW mentions in their answer. <S> If you just have some small pieces like me <S> then you could use a heat gun <S> (Has to be a strong one) or a blowtorch. <S> The latter can damage the wood since it is flame based but in general heat is the point. <S> or like BowlTurner says: Don't use pine/fir? :) <A> It can also be used between any two other finishes to prevent them from reacting with each other. <S> I have no experience with sealing sap into the wood but his statements would lead one to believe that it would work. <S> At any rate, it is very easy to apply and dries very fast so that's a plus. <A> Bowlturner's answer is really the best. <S> When purchasing lumber from a quality lumberyard you can ask if the "resin has been set". <S> There is a little extra heat & time applied. <S> This would be possible with any woods that are typically heavy sap woods (pine cedar etc). <S> Sometimes it's a little more work <S> but you can find the wood that's had the extra heat applied. <S> If not FWW has a nice article about using your oven. <S> I also remember a woodtalkshow podcast where one of the guys who works at a lumberyard explained all this <S> but I can't find the exact episode atm sorry. <S> Not enough rep to comment etc <S> so yeah <A> I burned my pine sign and the pitch was sealed. <S> (The wood I used was old pine siding that I planned thin). <S> Mineral spirits takes most of the pitch off but working at inspecting loads of wood I have learned that hand sanitizer disintegrates pitch fast. <S> I tried it on a pine sign and it worked like a charm with no damage to the wood and it removed all the pitch.
| If you have the means to kiln dry the wood then it would be the best course of action. It is said (by Bob Flexner in his book "Understanding Wood Finishes") that shellac is the best overall sealer.
|
Are there advantages to using pipe clamps over parallel bar clamps? Pipe clamps seem to be a low cost and versatile option for gluing up projects. However, they're prone to racking the work piece if not placed correctly. Parallel bar clamps aren't as susceptible to this problem, but they're much more expensive. Other than cost, are there any other reasons to go with pipe clamps over parallel bar clamps? <Q> Pipe clamps are very inexpensive compared to parallel bar clamps (also called K-body clamps), and have a virtually infinite range of clamping capacities because you can always replace your pipe with a longer or shorter one, or extend it with a pipe union and another pipe. <S> With a parallel bar clamp, you're stuck with the length you originally purchased. <S> One type of caul more or less extends the jaws of a pipe clamp , while curved (or cambered) cauls are commonly used to distribute the pressure from two clamps across a long edge or face. <A> In addition to being much cheaper than bar clamps, pipe clamps allow for much higher clamping pressure. <S> According to this article in Fine Woodworking, a typical parallel clamp can reach about 370 pounds of pressure. <S> 3/4" pipe clamps can reach 1,050 pounds and the I beam style bar clamps can reach 1,350 pounds. <S> One of the downsides to pipe clamps was that they could be difficult to keep aligned when on the underside of a glue up. <S> A lot of those problems can be eliminated by use of newer style clamps such as the Rockler Sure Foot clamps <A> Another advantage pipe clamps offer is that you can reverse them to expand even if you may need a pipe tap the first time.
| You can also use cauls with pipe clamps (or any type of clamp) to produce even pressure across a surface.
|
Why a zero clearance insert? I sometimes see woodworkers talking about a zero-clearance insert for their table- or band-saws. What is it? And why/when should I use one? <Q> To serve as a backing to minimize chipout on the back side of the cut. <S> I can't think of a time when you wouldn't be better off using one. <S> However, sometimes it's sort of a pain to make one for every blade, or in the case of a Dado set every blade combination... <S> So it tends to not be used for non critical cuts sometimes. <S> But again, I can't imagine it not helping for any cut. <A> A zero clearance insert is an insert which exactly matches the width of the blade. <S> You can make one by slowly raising the blade through an un-cut insert. <S> The advantage is as aaron says, they prevent things from falling through the hole, and more importantly, they reduce chip-out by ensuring that the piece has support and thus chips won't tend to get pulled away from the board. <S> It's not perfect though, so if you care, still put in your sacrificial piece. <S> In general, the less open space you have under your piece, the more control you have over it when cutting. <S> You should always use an insert that leaves as little gap around the blade as possible. <A> Let me add a couple things: <S> Here's two references for making one: Mattias Wandel's method , and Woodmagazine's method. <S> And here's what it looks like: <S> They're typically made out of plywood or MDF to prevent wood movement. <S> Others have mentioned that they're used for two reasons (1) to reduce chipout and (2) to prevent pieces from falling through the hold. <S> Let me add a third: to improve dust collection. <S> When you have a zero-clearance insert, it leaves less room for sawdust to spill onto the table (and directs it down the dust chute). <S> Or at least that's what I've heard.
| To prevent small pieces from falling into the gap.
|
Why does direction matter when using an electric router? I was watching an episode of the Wood Whisperer on YouTube, and he was making a frame for a mirror. At one point in the video he was going to put a round-over on the frame and was using an electric router for it. He said that the rule is "on the outside of the frame, go counter clockwise; on the inside go clockwise". He didn't give a reason. Now, I am a hand tool guy and my idea of a router is a good old Record 71. Image courtesy Record Planes I understand grain direction and wanting to work with it; not against it. From what I have been told you generally don't have to worry about it when using power tools. Why would the direction you are going around a frame matter as stated in the video? <Q> It has to do with the rotation of the bit. <S> In a normal cut, the work piece is fed against the rotation. <S> A normal cut works like this (shown for freehand): <S> The cutting action will pull the work piece into the bit. <S> The other cut, is known as a climbing cut. <S> It pushes the work piece away from the bit. <S> A climbing cut will have less tear out, but requires more control of the router to keep it from pulling away and injuring the operator or damaging the work piece. <S> A normal cut is safer in all instances. <S> The tear out that can happen can be eliminated by using a backer board to support the wood at the end of the cut. <S> See this link at Lee-Valley tools for a complete description (images are from Lee-Valley) <A> You want to go 'against' the rotation with your pass, rather than 'with' the rotation (called a climb cut). <S> This pulls the material toward the bit, but can splinter the last section of cut since the bit will be pushing out of the material. <S> There are times when you want to make a climb cut- if you have especially frangible material, you might make a climb cut for the last 1-2", then go back to the other end and start a regular cut- less tear-out at the end. <A> When you are hand cutting, you push the sharp edge of the cutting tool into the wood so that it makes a cut, you don't drag it along the wood backwards waiting for it to wear down the wood via friction. <S> The same holds true with a power tool. <S> When looked at from the top of the router, the bit will spin clockwise. <S> In order to push the cutter into the wood when moving around the outside of the picture frame, you would move the tool counter-clockwise. <S> Once you jump to the inside of the frame, in order to keep the cutting edge of the bit pushing into the wood, you want to use the 'other' side of the bit and go clockwise. <S> If you're going the wrong direction, the bit will want to 'run' along the surface, and not cut cleanly into the wood, leaving you with an uneven cut. <A> When using a router, the bit spins at up to 30,000 RPM in one direction (usually clockwise when holding it bit down). <S> Then if you run the bit in the same direction it is spinning, it will try and 'run away' and can totally mess up your work piece. <S> The reason why you go one way on the outside and the reverse on the inside is you are basically flipping which direction the bit will try to 'run'. <A> There are times when a conventional cut has the potential for less tear out. <S> Routing down hill with irregular outside shapes and a final conventional pass works very nicely to avoid tear out.
| It has to do with the rotation direction of the bit. If you are routing around the perimeter of an irregular outside shape like a guitar body, both cut directions will need to be used to avoid tear out and the conventional cut being the direction with less potential for tear out in some of the areas.
|
What technique and tools can I use to create a straight canoe pole from a green tree I'm using black spruce, white spruce, and tamarack to make canoe setting poles 12' x 1 ½" diameter. I look for standing green trees as straight as possible, maybe 1 ¾" at 13' height, then debark them to dry out. What technique with any tools (other than a lathe) do you suggest I use to make a straight pole from these trees? <Q> A spokeshave ! <S> It might be a bit slow, but that's how they might have done it "back in the day". <S> In more seriousness, a combination of jointer and planer should get you a reasonably straight, square piece of stock, then the spokeshave would help you get it round from there. <S> An additional thought: Once you get the piece squared, tip your table saw blade at 45° and knock off all the corners. <S> That will leave you with less to shave down. <A> As you pointed out a lathe is the best design for this. <S> spinning the wood to get an nice even turn. <S> As Freeman pointed out a spokeshave would also work. <S> I might start with a draw knives . <S> I've used this to peel bark from trees, especially aspen. <S> (though spring time most trees peel easy). <S> It a can also be used to shave off the branch nubs as well, making it easier to use the spokeshave. <S> Though buying dowels would by far be the easiest if you want them to pretty round... <A> Now that I have time ... <S> Spindle Turner <S> In the comments for TX Turner's response to <S> How can I fabricate a wooden cone? <S> , there is discussion of using a jig which can make a cylinder from a large blank. <S> Essentially it is a large box with a spindle on which the blank turns. <S> A router rides on a sled along the top of the jig and can progressively remove stock. <S> Examples are in this video and this tutorial . <S> These are for spindles of a few feet long, but I don't see any reason it couldn't be made longer ... <S> you might have trouble with the piece sagging if it's too thin, so you might need to do somethign clever with rollers or the like once it starts getting nearer the desired radius. <S> This would require that your green wood be very straight, or you'll wind up with a very long toothpick at best. <S> Dowel Cutter <S> Another option would be a dowel cutter. <S> I don't know if there are commercial versions that large, but it shouldn't be too hard to make your own, similar to this one. <S> The dowel is fed through the cutter, spun by a drill or similar spinny device (technical term). <S> I suppose you could alternatively twist it down by hand. <S> Start with a large diameter and work it down until it's the diameter you want.
| I would probably start by using a bandsaw with some sort of wedge to trim it into a mostly square or octagonal blank.
|
How can I make my own dowels? I am in the process of designing a baby crib and am considering using vertical dowels for the sides. I am not looking forward to purchasing dowels which are pricey, hard to find in quantity and quality, and don't show up in any but a few very common woods. I am thinking about making them from scratch. I know it's foolish and/or impossible to do on a lathe. Any advice on methods and pitfalls of DIY dowels? Still in the design phase, but anticipate 5/8" diameter by about 30". <Q> LeeG's method of using a router table is good though you can add finger boards. <S> After getting the blanks nearly round with the router you can jig up a chisel in a block of wood so it ends up looking a bit like a pencil sharpener. <S> Then with a hand-drill you can rotate the blank against the chisel so it ends up truly round. <S> This article describes the full process in detail. <A> Three methods I know of. <S> First is a dowel plate. <S> You trim your wood to approximate size and use a mallet to pound it through smaller and smaller holes until it is the size you want. <S> You can also use a round over bit in a table mounted router. <S> Leave the ends square (to run along the fence), and pass all 4 corners across the appropriate sized round over bit. <S> You need to have a router fence and table that is about twice the length of the dowel you want to create. <S> A third way, that I have never tried personally, is to use a table saw. <S> You make a jig to pass the piece through perpendicular to the blade and turn the piece to round the corners. <S> If you want to go this route, it deserves a full question and answer by itself. <S> If you need several long dowels, this might be a better way to go. <A> I have tried several methods. <S> I'll list them below and comment: Using Mattias Wandel's "pencil sharpener" method. <S> This works moderately well <S> but I found that the dowels had spiral grooves in them. <S> Also, the wood broke over time, so I got sick of it. <S> Using a router table : <S> This didn't work at all for me. <S> There was too much force required to push the dowel through (although, I could have messed up somehow). <S> Router table roundover bit. <S> This was mentioned by @LeeG. <S> This worked great. <S> It didn't make them perfectly round, but it was easy to chuck it in my drill and finish it off with some sand paper. <S> Izzy Swan's method . <S> I actually haven't tried this yet. <S> The basic idea is that you drill a hole through steel. <S> That hole will have a burr and that burr becomes a cutter as you feed wood through on a drill. <A> I was quite surprised by your assertion that you can't make dowel on a lathe. <S> So I asked my uncle, and we went out to the shop and made some on the lathe. <S> It is not hard, just slow. <S> To control breakage use both a tailstock and midpoint support and limit your effective length by keeping your tool near a support. <S> This does require moving the mid support frequently. <S> Further a lathe is the only way to make decorative dowels with balls and tapers. <A> For completeness I would like to mention their are some commercial solutions available as well. <S> This is one of several examples. <S> It has parts that let you make dowels from 1/4" to 1" in diameter. <S> Image from LeeValley Tools <S> This one in particular functions on the same principal as the Mattias Wandel's method shown in a couple of the answers here. <S> There are two blades. <S> The first one rough cuts the square stock, and the second details to create the dowel. <S> Making square stock from wood should be a simple process. <S> From a financial standpoint this might only be something to consider it you plan to "dowel all the things" to quote Peter Grace. <S> For making one or two dowels here and there one of the other methods might be more viable. <A> The Finewoodworking May 27, 2015, edition has an article on making dowel. <S> I would suggest a dowel plate which seems easier and safer than using a router. <S> Rather than cutting the stock for the plate with a saw, I would split it with a clever, froe or chisel to ensure that the grain is running straight through the dowel.
| Lastly, there are companies that make custom dowels out of a variety of woods.
|
How to remove dust after sanding before applying paint/oil/glue? Before one can paint a piece of wood, it should be clean from any dust on its surface. What is the recommended way to remove the dust? I tried using a hand brush, which only got rid of the rough bits and pieces a vacuum, which worked great for the most part, but did notremove the very fine dust. The suction could cause the nozzle to bump into the surface and leave scratches a glue soaked cloth (called "tack cloth") from the hardware store, which was intended forexactly that purpose and got the job done. Working with it was notvery nice though, reusability is questionable and who knows whatkind of stuff is used to make it sticky. I guess that a wet cloth has similar sticky properties than the aforementioned shop bought cloth, but has the disadvantage of applying moisture to the wood (leading to warped wood). Is there a better/recommended way to do this? <Q> Your item #3 is called a tack cloth and is quite commonly used for removing dust, because, as you noted, it's quite effective, and it's a highly recommended solution. <S> According to the linked Wikipedia article, there may be some VOC concerns, however, with increasing environmental regulations, those are either A) listed on the packaging, or B) being phased out of the manufacturing process. <A> Is there a better/recommended way to do this? <S> All the methods you list are recommended ways of removing dust from the workpiece. <S> Brushing is actually a very good way to get dust off wood, and for many woodworkers it's the main method they rely on. <S> It's just that you usually can't do it properly with only one brush. <S> You can use a large soft hand brush to get the worst of it off <S> but you need switch to something with stiffer bristles for the finer stuff. <S> Paintbrushes work well for this and their small size makes them good at getting into corners. <S> Some people swear by tack cloths*, others don't like them because they hate how they feel <S> and they worry that they'll leave a residue behind which will cause problems with the final finish (this doesn't appear to be much of a concern however). <S> I guess that a wet cloth has similar sticky properties than the aforementioned shop bought cloth, but has the disadvantage of applying moisture to the wood (leading to warped wood). <S> The real 'danger' to this is not warped wood, normally wood has to get really wet for there to be a risk of warping. <S> What you would worry about is raised grain (surface wood fibres swelling due to soaking up water). <S> But this doesn't happen if you moisten the cloth with mineral spirits, acetone or very pure alcohol. <S> A very good modern material to wipe with that isn't often recommended is microfibre cloth. <S> The very same surface texture that makes these so good at cleaning glass and polished surfaces make them very good at removing traces of fine dust from tiny imperfections in the wood surface. <S> * Homemade tack cloth You can make your own quite easily, from a clean scrap of lint-free cloth (old sheets and t-shirts can be good donors for the fabric), a few drops of varnish, the appropriate solvent for the varnish and a little water. <A> Instead of sucking it up you can blow it away using compressed air (or just your lungs). <S> A moist (not wet) cloth will minimize the water you apply to the wood. <S> A micro-fibre cloth is dry but will also have a very good dust grabbing properties. <A> Recommend an intial pass with a shop vac, which will capture probably 95% of the dust. <S> It is good to use a shop vac to clean the surface between sanding grits, removing the larger grit particles from the wood before sanding with the next higher grit. <S> While blowing the dust off with compressed air removes the dust, it also mixes it into the air so some of it can settle back onto the surface <S> and so you can breath it. <S> To get the last 5%, tack cloths are ok if using solvent based stains/dyes/top coats. <S> Do not use tack cloths if using water based stains/dyes/top coats. <S> Microfiber cloths are excellent dry "tack cloths" - they do not need to be wet or tacky with anything, so there are no worries about contaminating the surface before using a either type of stain/dyes/top coat. <S> Also, microfiber cloths can be re-used multiple times - simply take them outside and shake the dust out. <A> In a pinch I once used an old t-shirt lightly sprayed with hair-spray. <S> The spray then dried on the cloth for a few seconds before use. <S> It worked surprisingly well. <A> "Swiffer" dusters have worked well for me in the past <A> I like to use a soft terry cloth to wipe down before I apply finish. <S> So far it has worked well for me in getting the fine dust off the wood. <S> On wood with larger open grain (like padouk) I sometimes will blast it with air from the air compressor as well.
| A lightly dampened microfibre cloth may be the best way to remove dust from sanded wood.
|
How does one make a perfect circle on a table saw? I have seen videos related to cutting circles on a table saw. I would love to try this but I am hesitant to make a jig that, to me, seems to be extremely dangerous. Here is a video of Matthias Wandel using his jig to cut a rabbet into the circle, which seems like it'd be even scarier. How does one make this jig and do so safely? Are there any gotchas that should be considered when executing this jig? <Q> Take a sled and add a pivot as far away from the blade as you want your radius. <S> (riving knife and guards can remain in place) <S> As preparation rough cut your piece on the band-saw. <S> source <S> Then put your piece on the sled and attach it to the pivot. <S> Clamp it down to avoid the piece rotating while you are cutting and make a cut. <S> Unclamp, rotate, clamp and cut again; rinse and repeat until it is round. <S> To get it perfectly round while not rotating the wood against the blade is nearly impossible. <S> The last passes would require very accurate turns. <S> source <S> The main advantage of this last step is that you are turning the wheel on its own axle so even if you make a mistake when mounting the bearings/putting it on the shaft you can true out the wobble. <A> I'm of the same mind, Peter. <S> All the plans I've seen require removal of too much safety equipment. <S> There are too many other tools that would suffice- from a band saw for smaller circles to a jig saw or router on a commercial or shop made trammel for large ones. <S> e.g. <S> Band saw- <S> Or router.. <S> Or for a jig saw.. <A> What I think makes most of such jigs dangerous is that they allow rotation of the work piece while cutting . <S> That is not a safety issue per se, but at the begging of the process, the work piece is not a circle at all which makes it awkward to work with. <S> Here's what I suggest <S> use a sacrificial board like a table saw sled, this will become the "jig", but it really is just a sacrificial board Put the circle-to-be board on top of it, mark the center (dependingon the desired radius) and place is accordingly (there should be thea distance between the blade and the center as big as the desiredradius) <S> Screw the upper board to the sled. <S> Position the screw at the centerof the radius <S> Add a second screw. <S> This one locks the upper board from spinningaround. <S> Feed that into the saw. <S> This is not different from any other twoboard being securely connected. <S> It's just "one thicker board". <S> Pull back, unscrew the second screw, rotate the top board a bit,srew the second screw back in. <S> Go to 5. <S> until you have asufficiently round work piece. <S> These are just my thoughts. <S> I do not have a table saw. <S> I agree with TX Turner that other tools might be better suited for this task or will be much safer to use. <A> Trying to cut finished circles on a table saw is about as unsafe an idea as I can think of. <S> The reason that the Wandel setup works is that the rabbet is not much deeper than the tooth depth on the blade. <S> This means that any wood fed into the blade at an angle encounters teeth and gets cut. <S> For any cut deeper than the tooth depth, this invites disaster. <S> Wood which is fed into the body of the blade at an angle will do one of two things: if the blade is moving downwards, the wood will burn due to friction and the piece will stall - if the blade is moving upwards, the piece will be picked up and thrown. <S> Neither is a good idea.
| Instead if you have a motor and some shaft and bearings handy you can attach you can attach a pully to the wheel and work on it like a lathe.
|
Removal of hardware from drawer front I am refinishing a bedside table that my late husband made many years ago. I have just realized that when he assembled the drawer he attached the hardware to the front plate with screws and then he glued the front panel to the drawer box. I do not have access to the screws to remove the hardware. I need to remove the handle to strip the drawer front and I also want to put new hardware on. Any ideas on how to proceed. <Q> Sorry cannot comment yet, other wise I would have commented on Bowltuner's. <S> Take Bowltuner's drill idea, but use a common 3/4" hole <S> saw instead of a standard drill bit when the saw portion cuts in to the wood, remove the center drill from the hole saw. <S> This will protect the screw head better from damage due to your drilling. <S> Still use tape as a depth gauge, and pry out the hole core with a flat blade screw driver. <A> Ouch. <S> If he did a good job gluing, then the best idea I can come up with would be to drill holes. <S> On the inside of the drawer, try your best to line up with the where the screws should be holding the handles on. <S> I'd take a 1/2" drill bit and drill down through 'most' of the inside board <S> , I would guess the board is either a 1/2" or 3/4" board. <S> so drill to just short of the depth, or just to it <S> (stop if you hear metal on metal!). <S> An easy way to do that is to measure the distance on the drill bit and put a piece of masking tape <S> so when the tape reaches the wood stop. <S> If you measured right, the screw head should be there and you might need a little knife to clean up the hole. <S> With any luck there won't be glue in the screw heads <S> otherwise you might need a small sharp tool to clean them out as well. <S> After that you should be good to go. <A> If you are not interested in saving the handle, you can use a Dremel or other small cutoff tool to cut the handle in half then unscrew it from the mounting screws. <S> Once you know the exact location of the screws, you can drill through from the other side as suggested by Bowlturner and remove the screw. <A> You would have to adjust the table of the bandsaw to cut the face off trying to follow the glue line between the drawer and the face. <S> Also, trying to feed this through the bandsaw too fast will be dangerous. <S> The blade can also walk (the blade moves away from where you want it to be) while cutting. <A> Did this on a marine drawer... take a large plaster spatula and tap it between the components. <S> Start at the corners and keep rotating around, this will keep the pieces from splintering or cracking. <S> Then replace the hardware and re-glue. <S> If you want to keep the clean appearance try sanding both faces first with an orbital sander, and just apply Gorilla glue at the top seam and the corners. <S> Don't mess with the glue till hard and then use a chisel to clean up the excess.
| There is one other option, that I suggest as a last resort, and should not be done by someone who has limited experience: use a bandsaw table to cut the drawer face off the drawer.
|
How to find out what kind of finish is on a piece of furniture I have several old pieces of furniture that have issues with the existing finish. I would like to do a gentle restoration of these pieces while maintaining the original look. I am not sure if the finish is shellac, or some kind of other varnish. How would I be able to tell what is there? Is there a way to test the finish to determine what it is? <Q> Since they are very old, they are most likely lacquer or shellac. <S> As previously noted, test for shellac with DNA, lacquer with lacquer thinner. <S> If those don't soften the finish, then it's probably a phenolic or alkyd varnish which will require stripping. <S> Here is a good article on refinishing by Bob Flexner. <A> You can test the finish by applying different types of solvent in an inconspicuous location on the piece of furniture. <S> For example, you can remove Shellac with denatured alcohol. <S> Bob Vila's website outlines a few common solvents that work for certain finishes in an article about removing varnish . <S> Some types of finish, like lacquer, burn into the existing layer when you apply a new coat. <S> Other types of finish, like polyurethane, do not burn in, so if the topcoat is damaged you should ideally either uniformly sand through that coat across the entire piece, or you'll need to strip the finish all the way down to the wood and apply all-new finish. <A> Shellac is removed with alcohol, lacquer with lacquer thinner, and varnish with paint thinner. <S> Obviously do this on a part that is not visible if possible. <S> Perhaps a better way would be to just strip part of one piece, and try different finishes (stripping between) until you get the look you want, then use that process on the remaining pieces.
| You could test what kind of solvent will remove it.
|
Can I use a plungable router bit on a drill press? I'm currently working on a cutting board. With a core box bit, I made rounded grooves close to the edges of the board. I would like to have bigger grooves on the corners. I'm thinking of using a bigger core box bit on my drill press to make the four corners. I'm trying to avoid my plunge router due to possible side movements while plunging. I would hate to scrap my work at this point. On my drill press I have no need of moving the board to make a groove, just a "plunge". In short, can I use my plungable router bit on my drill press for a simple "drill" application. <Q> I'm thinking of using a bigger core box bit on my drill press to make the four corners. <S> I'm trying to avoid my plunge router due to possible side movements while plunging. <S> Personally, I wouldn't try it myself. <S> A drill press runs 10-100x slower than a router, so I wouldn't expect a smooth cut on the drill press. <S> A better solution to the problem would be to use the router but clamp it in place to prevent lateral motion. <A> You are trying to make a hole with a hemispherical bottom. <S> I would remove most of the material with a regular drill, them switch to the box core bit. <S> First, of course, try it out on a piece of scrap wood of the same type as the cutting board. <S> If you are just making a large diameter dimple, no need to pre-drill. <S> Run the drill press at its maximum speed and lower the drill slowly to minimize tear out. <S> In either case make sure your board is clamped in position. <A> If there is side load its not good for the quill. <S> It sounds like your just plunging. <S> If you are, a half round end mill in the size you are looking for will do a better job than a router bit. <A> "Can you?" I am sure you can. <S> "Should you?" <S> debatable. <S> As Caleb pointed out, routers spin at considerably faster rates than a drill press. <S> First thing would be to set your drill press to the fastest setting it can achieve. <S> If you have a good horse-powered drill press it will probably work, but no promises to how nice and clean it cuts. <S> I would recommend using your plunge router to do it. <S> Assuming you have a decent one and not a mediocre cheap one. <S> I would start by trying to do what you want on some scrap wood just to make sure you can do it to the level of accuracy that you are looking for. <S> In theory you could clamp the base of the router onto your work piece to prevent any sideways movement. <S> The set up will take a little longer but it should make the cuts to your satisfaction. <A> You could, but as others have mentioned the speed of the bit (RPM) is going to be a bit of an issue. <S> You're going to have to plunge slowly, and I would recommend "pecking" the bit into the timber. <S> That is, plunge the bit by a small amount, then lift it all of the way up out the timber, plunge it in again, and repeat until you've reached the desired depth. <S> Even better if you can have a compressed air line constantly blowing where you're cutting. <S> This is all because router bits rely on high RPMs to clear chips and dust out of the hole being routed, whereas when you're drilling at a few hundred to a few thousand RPM, the debris won't clear. <S> You're also going to have to make sure that your bit doesn't heat up too much. <S> All in all, I'd say try it on some scrap timber first and see how you go.
| I've heard of people using a router bit in a drill press, but I've never heard a reputable source recommend doing it.
|
How can I make a sliding interior 'barn' door? I want to make a door similar to this: What kind of wood would you recommend and what would be the best way to build it? I am guessing it would need to be reinforced from the back? <Q> Generally-speaking, you can use whatever type of wood and finish appeal to you. <S> Depending on your application, you may want the door to be either lighter or heavier. <S> If the door is closing off a movie room, you may want a more solid, thicker, heavier door to better absorb and deaden the sound. <S> Of course, if you really want to block sound, you'll probably also want to seal off gaps around the doorway between the wall and the door. <S> The metal straps in your picture may be critical to the door's structure, but it's highly likely they are only aesthetic. <S> Ideally you would drill oval horizontal holes in the faux metal straps, cover the holes with washers, and avoid overtightening the screws. <S> This will allow the wood to expand and contract across the width of the door (across the grain, as pictured) as the humidity changes with the seasons. <S> Solid wood <S> You can assemble the door panel as you would any typical panel or tabletop , then install the faux metal straps for visual enhancement. <S> If you use solid wood, quartersawn lumber will be less prone to warping. <S> If you prefer the appearance of flatsawn/plainsawn lumber, be sure to alternate the end grain as discussed in https://woodworking.stackexchange.com/a/241/49 . <S> Plywood/MDF <S> You could build the door using plywood or MDF (or even MDF-core plywood), using veneers that give the appearance of a solid wood panel, if preferred. <S> If you use plywood, be sure to use a high-quality, many-ply type of plywood such as Baltic birch. <S> Torsion box <S> As keshlam noted in a comment on your question, you could also build a hollow-core door, more generally described as a torsion box. <S> This involves building a flat internal skeleton, with thinner outer "skins." <A> That door is held together by the metal strips across the face. <S> another which can be all wood would have the 'Z' on one side. <S> You can use any wood, pine would be fairly light and easy to move, but easy to ding up. <S> Oak would look nice, but be a little heavier, but a good rolling system shouldn't make it a big deal. <S> ETA:when making one of these it is recommended to do a 'tongue and groove' style. <S> Put a groove on all the boards, then glue in a 'tongue' (spline) on only one. <S> Fit them together and then put the braces on. <S> By not glue both sides <S> you let the wood move without twisting the door. <S> [The complete illustrated guide to furniture & cabinet construction by Andy Rae] Just read that chapter this weekend end. <S> Source <A> Since hardwood flooring is already tongue and groove it will make for a very strong door with minimal effort. <S> The metal would then be used to keep the wood together aside from glue possibly. <S> The couple of downsides would be the weight and that wood usually has a concave recess on the bottom of the boards. <S> Fixing both of those should not be hard as you could plane or cut with the saw to make a nice flat surface. <S> Something similar would need to be done about the outside tongue and groove, but again, good pass on the table saw will true that. <S> Since you don't need much it is usually easy to come up with small amounts used. <S> I have seen second hand sites offer that up regu <A> Just a quick note: the hardware (track and rollers) for this is available from some woodworking stores; they could tell you the manufacturer, who might have useful plans available.
| Focusing more on the wood itself in that picture my first instinct for stability and ease of assembly was to use some hardwood flooring. If the door is simply closing off the kitchen from the hallway and you will need to frequently open and close it but preventing sound from passing through is not a major concern, you may prefer some more lightweight type of construction.
|
Can I get some tips or criticisms of this couch plan? I drafted this myself in Blender. Dado joints are depicted, mortise/tenon joints and bolted joints are not. This is to-scale, planned with douglas fir 2x4s and jute webbing/coil spring/4 way tie construction/ and then tie on cushions. Dimensions are about 31" x 7.5' x 36". I have never built a couch (or any furniture) before, but have been studying woodworking a lot, so I am looking mostly for tips on how I might improve this, or especially, if it's structurally weak in any way. <Q> Then attach it to the back legs and side legs using a dado. <S> The two short legs shouldn't receive much lateral stress - You can probably get away with just a mortise and tenon joint there. <S> If you change the orientation of the long horizontal boards, you could eliminate the middle legs all together (a 2x4 will only sag about 0.1 inches with 250 pounds directly in the middle). <S> I put a 10 degree angle on the back, which is probably too much, but it gives you an idea. <S> If you attach the back to the base using a glued dado, it isn't going to rack at all. <A> I would say you don't have enough triangles. <S> The short front legs are the most obvious place, they will tend to be a weak spot. <S> They only have one point of attachment and that is on the end, <S> the weakest joint. <S> I would put triangle pieces on all four of the legs in the middle and attach to the cross piece under the seat. <S> There is also a chance of racking the whole thing from side to side (the long way). <S> For that I would put a board (an other triangle) from the bottom of the feet on the outside (in the back) to the next upper corner. <A> I'd say you probably want some triangular braces under where the legs meet the lower (front to back) supports. <S> They probably only need to be a couple of inches deep/tall, glued/pinned/screwed into the legs and underside of the supports. <S> It may not seem like they'd do much, but you should find they'll add a lot of rigidity. <S> Anywhere you can add in triangular bracing without spoiling the look is going to help against the kind of lateral racking forces you're going to get when people stand up and sit down, and are moving around on the couch. <A> Your design needs a wee bit of work before it becomes a complete or workable design. <S> Design is an iterative process of which you have made the first iteration. <S> Two or three more cycles <S> and you should be ready to begin construction. <S> Some things that I think you should consider: Others have addressed the fact that the long horizontals in the seat structure will deflect vertically; they will also be have large horizontal loads induced by the jute webbing. <S> In your next iteration make the 2x4's their correct size (1 1/5 x 3 1/2) and consider the orientation of your mortice and tenon joints. <S> Also will they be blind or through tenons? <S> Although many woodworkers eschew mechanical fasteners, you might consider the concept of "screw and glue" making sure not to screw into end grain. <S> Even if the structure for the back remains vertical, you still need to consider the cushioning to be inclined. <S> With your 36" depth for the seat, your cushioning should be 14" thick at its base. <S> This suggests that the seat cushion is going to thicker and that the seat structure will have to be lowered considerably. <S> Good luck on your next iteration. <A> I really think you need an angle in the back leg. <S> You're going to have your guests sitting pretty upright if you don't <S> and it won't be very comfortable.
| Well constructed lap joints as well as mortise and tenons can be considered as rigid joints lessening or eliminating the need for triangular bracing (think Danish Modern furniture from the mid 20th century.) I would build the bottom grid where the cushions sit with mortise and tenon joints.
|
Is this a specific kind of hand drill? I have been collecting tools from my grandfather's old workshop. One of the items appears to be a hand drill. What is odd about this is that if you look up hand drill they either function similar to a manual egg beater or a brace-and-bit hand-drill. Closest I found was the icon for hand drills on eBay. This would operate with one hand which is superior to the aforementioned hand drills but for pure drilling I would think the others perform more efficiently. What is this really for and could I use this in modern wood-working? Update After reading some of the responses and comments I looked back at the tool with more information. I noticed the top unscrews and it contained 3 small "pins". The picture is enlarged. The objects are about 1 inch long. The jaws are perfectly sized for for these pins. It appears I had guessed, wrong potentially, that this was a drill. <Q> It has the advantage of working in some places where you can't fit a crank or brace-and-bit. <A> This is a push drill as @keshlam said. <S> They're particularly useful for drilling small diameter holes quickly, easily and accurately. <S> It can be a bit tricky to drill a small hole steadily while you're holding a big heavy electric drill, or wobbling around with an "egg beater" style hand drill, which is where push drills come in. <S> You can also use them one-handed which can be useful for when you need to hold something still while drilling (or for example hold multiple pieces in position for drilling through them all simultaneously). <A> Here is a link to some great 50's footage at the Fender guitar factory of one in use. <S> It's only a few seconds <S> but I think it shows its usefulness in a production situation. <S> I suppose rechargeable battery powered drills have replaced it. <S> Yankee drill at Fender factory <S> late 50's <A> I own a Yankee drill and one of these. <S> The handle of the Yankee drill is hollow metal to hold a half dozen different diameter drill bits. <S> My version of this tool came with a removable screwdriver blade. <S> I imagine there are a variety of blades available. <S> If you view the video @mike fleck referenced you will notice that the worker put small screws into the the neck of the guitar, then used this tool to tighten them by pressing up and down a couple of times. <S> So, my experience and the video of one in use tells me that this is a screwdriver. <A> They are great if you need to make small holes, such as pilot holes. <S> Very quick. <S> I have used mine when I have a bit checked in my cordless drill for driving screws, and need to make pilot holes. <S> Rather than switching bits in the drill every time, I use the Yankee drill to make the pilot holes, then use the cordless drill to drive screws. <A> It's a push screwdriver , not a drill, on the Mike Fleck's answer there's a video. <S> I've used it, it's handy for large quantity of medium size screws(smaller tend to jump out, larger are easier to screw by rotary movement)... <S> Of course if you don't have electric analogue by hand...
| That's a push drill, sometimes referred to as a "Yankee drill".
|
What to look for when buying a tap and die set (for wood) I have never used a tap and die set but I find myself in the market to purchase some for a couple project I would like to do. What features should I be looking for, ease of use, etc.? Anything I should avoid? I'm looking for 3/4" to 1 1/2" size die and taps <Q> Most die and tap sets are made for metal and as such, the threads may be too fine to be supported in wood. <S> There are sets specifically made to cut threads in wood, such as this one sold by Garrett Wade or this one made by Beall <S> If you want to use a standard machine thread, you should reinforce the threads with epoxy. <A> <A> Not that it has been an exhaustive search but when it comes to Taps and Dies more effort seems to be put on technique and the wood used then the actual taps/dies used. <S> The one universal point that makes sense it that with taps save yourself the trouble and get the taps with the matching drill bits. <S> Since you are using them for just wood they should last much longer then if they were used on metal. <S> Like I said in my comment you should be looking for ones that make larger threads. <S> Most of the larger taps and dies I saw were for making broom handles for example. <S> The do make one with tighter threads. <S> This video shows a bench using machine threaded taps and the builder praises them <A> I bought a generic set from Harbor Freight relatively cheap and it works quite well. <S> I use it in wood, mild steel, cast iron, and even used in in hardened steel (with some oil) and they work just fine. <S> http://www.harborfreight.com/hand-tools/tap-die/60-piece-sae-metric-tap-and-die-set-35407.html
| A coarser Square thread or Acme thread tap and die would be good for wood as they should be stronger and more durable than the common V threads, especially for soft materials.
|
Should I do many shallow quick cuts or a single deep slow one with my router? Most cutting tools have a certain removal rate of material at which they should operate. You don't want to go too slow because it takes forever.And if you go to fast the tool heats up too much. This question is concerned with the latter one on a router.I heard that the usual technique is to plunge the bit only a little and not the full depth of the cut. Then make several cuts plunging deeper every time. That makes sense. It reduces how much material is removed in one go. Couldn't I achieve the same thing by doing one single cut with the bit plunged to the final depth, cutting very slowly? The problems that I see with the first approach: it only uses the top part of the bit, which will become more and moredull while the rest of the bit is not used that much doing that same cut over an over again is could cause marks of thedifferent cuts to be visible What's the better way of doing it? <Q> For cuts with a router, slow also can mean burnt material. <S> If I have a complex profile to cut, I either break it into multiple passes with multiple bits, or I sneak up on it, going slightly deeper each pass. <S> Some folks also make a deep pass at close to the final depth, then make another shallow, fast pass at final depth to finish up the cut. <S> e.g. <A> Always make sure your bits are sharp and take small bites with the router. <S> Heat from taking too large a bite or moving slowly can also destroy the temper on the router bit, causing it to dull faster and/or break. <S> Carbide bits are more resistant to heat than high-speed steel bits, but both can dull and break under high heat. <S> Also, larger-shank bits are able to dissipate the heat more readily than smaller-shank bits. <S> For example, all else being equal, a bit with a 1/2" shank will stay cooler than the equivalent bit with a 1/4" shank. <S> Often you should remove the bulk of the waste with a different tool first--for example, a saw or drill--then finish up with shallow passes with the router. <S> Sometimes you might also use one router bit for the first "hogging out" pass, then switch to the bit that has the final profile you want. <S> For example, when routing dovetails, a common recommendation is to remove the bulk of material with a straight bit, then finish up with the dovetail bit. <A> I've tried both with a router. <S> Cutting a 3/8th in deep groove though a board is a lot more work and it is a lot easier to mess it up. <S> I burned a lot more wood. <S> You also have to push harder which means it is easier to wobble the router as you move it along. <S> I generally go for 1/8" passes, for 1/2" or bigger bits. <S> It doesn't really take long to make the pass, reset the bit to the next depth and run it again. <S> Each time it is actually a little easier. <S> I do find if you are going to go for broke, leaving enough to do a 'final' pass to clean everything up <S> is a very good idea. <A> One problem with a deep cut is the wood chips needs to be removed from the cut area, or it will be recut and the dust will add friction and heat. <S> If you want to do a deep cut you can use a constant stream of compressed air to clear the wood chips and cool the cutter at the same time, which allows you to not burn the wood and also cut faster. <A> More, shallow hits is generally a better philosophy. <S> The other answers have made good points but something they haven't touched on is "chatter". <S> If you use a single, deep pass (even with a slow "feed rate", that is the rate of travel of your router), due partially because of chip clearance problems and partially just because the bit will have a longer part of the edge "hitting" the timber with each revolution, the bit will tend to be pushed out away from the cutting face with each revolution. <S> Each time the bit is pushed away from the timber you're going to end up with a judder mark left on the timber. <S> This'll be lessened by using a spiral-cut router bit rather than a straight-fluted one, and also by taking shallower passes. <A> I always "knew" the answer, but I didn't know why. <S> So I emailed the question to router expert Pat Warner. <S> His web site contains a wealth of information on safe, efficient use of a router. <S> His response was that in addition to creating burns and chatter in the cut, the deeper cut causes the motor to draw more amps, possibly even to the point of burning out the motor, if you don't break the bit first. <S> The long bits are made for trimming the edge of a board, where you can take very light cuts. <S> Pat recommends never making a cut deeper than 3/16" on an inside cut.
| If the router bit travels too slowly, it can burn and/or burnish your workpiece.
|
What is the name of the corner joint with grooves on this chair? I removed the seats from dining chairs I just bought but have never seen this type of construction. What is it called? <Q> I agree with the other answers that it's best called a finger joint or maybe a finger jointed corner brace . <S> You could also call it a box joint if you want to distinguish it from the tapered finger joints that are sometimes used to join boards end-to-end in stock made up of shorter pieces. <S> The point of a corner brace is to add support to the corner joint. <S> Usually, the brace is connected to each rail with glue and screws. <S> Using a finger joint here adds a lot of glue area in a shearing direction, so the connection between brace and rails should be very strong even without mechanical fasteners. <S> Forming that joint in a production setting would be fast and cheap, and it would save the cost of maybe 16 screws per chair and the time needed to drive them. <S> I found another example at dutchcrafters.com , which describes these braces as "grooved": <A> While the corner brace is pretty common in chairs <S> I've never seen what appears to be a 'finger' joint incorporated with it. <S> But that is the best I can guess, a finger joint for the brace. <A> This looks to be some sort of Finger joint, probably used as an Assembly joint to make it easier to assemble. <S> You could apply glue to the corner brace, then run a screw through it, and not have to worry about clamping it while the glue dries. <A> There is no official name for many more complex types of joints, and once you get to combining different types of joint techniques you can only really do your best to describe them succinctly. <S> There's a really great woodworking glossary website here: http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/_g_A.htm <S> which describes lots of types of joint, but even he gets to the point where he's calling things something like an "angled keyed dovetail half lap joint". <S> It is probably the most accurate way to describe the particular joint <S> he's talking about (roughly half way down the page) <S> but there's not a single person who, if asked to joint two pieces of timber using an angled keyed dovetail half lap joint, wouldn't ask you to explain with a drawing. <A> Interlocking corner brace. <S> I only found one company that uses it.
| "Interlocking corner brace", "finger jointed corner brace", "box jointed angle brace" and "grooved corner brace" all seem like reasonable names for the joint to me.
|
How do I look for a table saw blade with non-angled teeth? I'm thinking about building this box joint jig so I can make my joints with a single blade (rather than having to pull out my dado set). The problem is that I've got one of them fancy Freud blades that has angled teeth (adjacent teeth are pointed in a different direction). It makes great, clean, quiet cuts, but for non-through cuts, it leaves a little ridge. I know they make tablesaw blades that don't have the angle on their teeth, but I can't find identify where it's listed online whether it's angled or not. Is there a generic name or description for this type of blade? <Q> You want to pay attention to the type of tooth grind, which describes how the individual teeth are shaped. <S> Vermont American has a good resource for types of grinds. <S> So good candidates would be: <S> Flat Top Grind (often used for ripping) <S> Triple Chip Grind (for hard, abrasive materials) Multipurpose Carbide Tip (ripping, crosscutting) <S> Your best bet is likely a Flat Top Grind, since there are no angled teeth that may protrude above the height of the flat teeth. <S> Many ripping blades are FTG, so just check the description prior to buying. <A> Let's talk teeth! <S> There are more types of grinds, but I feel these are the applicable ones for your question: Flat top (FT/FTB) <S> An FT or FTB blade is one which has flat teeth that you're looking for. <S> Alternate Top Bevel (ATB) <S> An Alternate Top Bevel (It will be marked ATB on the blade) is one which has alternating beveled teeth, like the one you mentioned. <S> Combination/"all purpose <S> " There are also combination or "all-purpose" blades which have "groups" of teeth, a set of ATB teeth, followed by one flat top tooth. <S> Branding <S> You're likely to see an FT blade marketed as a rip blade and an ATB marketed as a cross cut blade. <S> The blades will also probably be marked wit the cut, though you can also just look at them and see. <S> So which one? <S> The problem you're likely ton encounter is that FT blades are typically meant for ripping, which means you're going to have a smaller number of teeth (they're meant to take big bites), where an ATB blades are for cross cuts, so they are likely to have the larger number of teeth you're looking for. <S> Combination blades have a large number of teeth, and that finishing flat tooth may get you the flat bottom you're looking for. <S> I think this is probably what you'll want, if the Forrest blade Lee mentioned doesn't do it for you (Forum posts and reviews seem to indicate it's good, but it is pricey). <A> Forrest sells a blade which is totally flat. <S> If you have an old saw blade that needs resharpening, most sharpening companies can regrind your blade when they sharpen it to make it a flat top grind. <A> If you have a stacked dado set, you can use one of the outside blades from that set with your jig. <S> Stacked dado blades are flat ground so that they make flat-bottomed dados.
| Any grind combination with at least one flat tooth should give you a flat-bottomed cut. Tri-Grind (general combination grind)
|
How can I make an inset cutting board handle? How is this cutting board handle possible? The only way I can think of is that it was done by hand with a gouge, but it looks too clean for that. Can an inset handle, such as the one pictured below, be done with power tools? <Q> Two ways spring to mind immediately. <S> One way would be with a router, a core box bit, and a jig. <S> The jig would clamp onto the end of the cutting board and provide a surface for the router to ride on. <S> This would give you a true reproduction of the effect in the photo above. <S> (In my drawing, the curve is exaggerated for effect.) <S> Mount two blocks on your router base to make sure it can't move side to side, and have at it. <S> Set up a jig to make a platform large enough for the router to ride on, then start at one end, plunge, move to the other end, and lift. <A> You could use a router with a cove (ball nose) bit. <S> This will create the sloped effect around the edges. <S> Your cutting board would be clamped vertically and you would start in the center and move out to each side. <A> Although you could find a way to form that handle with a router, I'd guess that whoever made that board used a shaper with a cutter like this :
| A second way would be to just have a plunge router and a core box bit.
|
How do I cut a large log into boards? An acquaintance was clearing some trees from his land, and I asked him to save a section of big leaf maple so I could mill it for an electric guitar. The piece ended up being roughly 9" x 9" x 36". I figured I'd let it dry then saw into boards. Now, about a year later (and after learning much more about woodworking), I realize I should have had it milled before drying. It has cracked some as it dried, but should still be usable. My problem now is I don't know how to go about milling it. It's bigger than I had asked for and I don't have the tools to break it down. Here is what I have: Circular saw (7.5") My grandpa has a 10" table saw Handsaw (18-24") I'm not sure I like either of those options. Seems like the blade could bind, and while the piece is too heavy to kick back on a table saw, it could burn up the motor, or toss the circular/break my wrist. Do I chalk this up to beginner's mistake and scrap the idea, or is there something I could still try (bandsaw, chainsaw, etc.)? Note: This question is different from What is the process, from start to finish, for milling a tree into boards? in that this question is about milling a chunk of wood that is small enough not to require or justify the size of tool (e.g., bandsaw mill or chainsaw mill) which is usually used to mill large tree trunks. As @bowlturner pointed out in a comment, it also may be too small for some such mills. <Q> To make the first 'cut' I would split it in half. <S> I personally would use my wood maul and just split it. <S> I've had years of splitting wood for firewood and could do a <S> pretty even split down the middle. <S> So, what I would recommend would be to use a large mallet or a round ended maul and pound it into the wood to split it. <S> To make things a little easier you could take your skill saw and cut a line across the end, making several passes to get it to the max depth of the saw. <S> Then use the wood wedge to finish splitting it. <S> Once you have the two halves, you should have an easier time cutting it into boards. <S> The table saw could square it up and probably do most of the work needed. <S> Though a band saw would work better to make it into boards. <A> Building a bandsaw sled and using a bandsaw with 10" or larger resaw capacity is the first power tool solution that comes to mind. <S> Matthias Wandel has a nice article detailing how to do this. <S> Since you mentioned you only have <S> access to a circular saw and table saw, the cheapest solution, aside from finding someone with more tools, would be to rip the block of wood into boards with a handsaw. <S> ( Source ) <A> I'm of the same mind as Matt- <S> you'd need a large capacity band saw, a chain saw then a big band saw, a chainsaw mill, a portable mill, or.. <S> any number of large, expensive tools. <S> Were it me <S> , I'd ask the folks at my local wood working stores (Rockler, Woodcraft, etc) <S> If there's a mill they know that will take a random chunk of wood. <S> If they don't know, ask them if there's a local wood working club- <S> one of those guys will likely a) have a big band saw, or b) know someone who does. <S> Additionally you may find out that the center of it isn't as dry as the first few inches. <S> So you may be milling it into rough sizes and waiting another 8-10 months. <A> You might need a riser and longer blade to allow enough height for the log, depending on the size of the saw and how the it came configured.
| It is possible to do quite a bit of milling with a bandsaw if you build the support tables and guides needed to handle a large hunk of wood.
|
Is it a good idea to apply lacquer over shellac? I have an antique coffee table that I am planning to restore. It is elaborately carved, and appears to be made out of solid mahogany. The existing finish is in pretty good shape, except for the top of the table. I believe that the finish is a colored shellac and someone must have spilled rubbing alcohol on the table and then tried to wipe it up which resulted in raised areas in the finish and a couple of spots where the finish has been completely removed. My plan is to use denatured alcohol to refresh the surface, and level out the spots where the finish was smeared. I think I may be able to repair the areas where the finish has been removed. Once the finish has been repaired, I plan to apply a few thin coats of spray lacquer to the top to protect the surface from future damage. Would a lacquer finish be the wrong approach? <Q> The flake mixed with DNA is better than the hardware store canned. <S> That being said, the area could be spot repaired with a fad via french polish and shellac without lacquer. <S> I am assuming if it is has a shellac finish <S> it is a vintage piece so keeping with the original finish is always a plus. <A> It certainly isn't a bad idea, depending on what you want. <S> You might want to consider refreshing rather than completely stripping and refinishing. <S> Since shellac dissolves into previous coats you can often sand carefully (watch out for the risk of sanding thru a veneer!), restain if necessary and recoat. <S> (Actually, traditional lacquer is also often repairable, for the same reasons -- but that involves worse fumes and longer drying time than with shellac, so it actually isn't uncommon to use shellac to seal spot repairs made to lacquer finishes). <A> Would a lacquer finish be the wrong approach? <S> Your basic idea here is sound; on furniture such as a coffee table that will be in regular use shellac is not a good final protective coat because of its poor water-resistance and of course its solubility in alcohol. <S> However lacquer may not be the best bet here for a couple of reasons. <S> The main one is that your lacquer's solvent may be 'hotter' than alcohol and if so the shellac will be soluble in it, which can lead to crazing after application. <S> This is not a will happen , but some testing is advisable. <S> The other issue is brittleness. <S> A quality polyurethane will add good water-resistance, improved resistance to scratching and slightly better resistance to knocks than lacquer because of its superior flexibility. <S> So it is arguably a better choice for a day-to-day piece. <S> Also, in case it needs to be said: you should either mix your own shellac or buy a brand new can of premixed shellac. <S> Shellac has a definite shelf life (despite manufacturer claims to the contrary!) <S> once made up into liquid form; it is much better when used fresh, ideally within months of mixing. <A> On my can of Zinsser shellac "Not recommended for use as a sealer under polyurethane". <S> It says nothing about lacquer. <S> It sounds like <S> some serious skill would be required to evenly match the original color. <S> I've been messing with using this stuff to finish the tweed covering on a reproduction Fender Tweed guitar amplifier cabinet. <S> To add a little color I mixed about 3 parts clear shellac with one part amber shellac. <S> The amber shellac alone was too dark and was difficult to get even coloring. <S> I smoothed out a couple areas by wetting a paint brush with denatured alcohol, softening the finish and redistributing it. <S> You may be able to use aniline dyes to tint the shellac to match the original finish, but I'd be a bit afraid that the analine dye based finish may age differently than the original over time. . <A> I have found (dewaxed) shellac to be an amazing barrier coat. <S> I haven't used it as a primary finish since I did decoupage as a kid, but I have sprayed dozens of gallons of dewaxed under both conversion varnish and poly as a barrier to who knows what kinds of muck is soaked into commercial (restaurant) bar tops. <S> I prefer it over any of the sealers, vinyl or otherwise, that I have tried. <S> Sprays nice with HVLP and dries at least as fast as lacquer.
| Yes, shellac is a great barrier coat and wash coat, lacquer works well over it.
|
Does Pine have any advantages? I am referring to the broad category of SPF or "Spruce/Pine/Fir". Although easy to come by and cheap, these seem to have more disadvantages. Bleeding sap for one and a large tenancy to all kinds of warping. Does SPF, in general, have any redeeming qualities besides just being cheap wood in both sense of the term? <Q> I assume you're probably more thinking of what is commonly labeled "SPF," which stands for "Spruce/Pine/Fir." <S> Cheap wood used for dimensional lumber; however, pine is a pretty broad category. <S> This Wood Database article handles it well, dividing into "soft pine," and "hard pine." <S> Soft Pine Is very soft with regular grain; it might be good for a beginning whittler/woodcarver to practice on. <S> This category includes Western and Eastern White Pine species. <S> Hard Pine: Can be categorized into two subgroups: Western Yellow and Southern Yellow. <S> Southern Yellow Pines Are moderately dense. <S> Shortleaf Pine , for example, has a density similar to red oak. <S> These have an irregular grain which may be good for turning? <S> I would have to defer to someone with experience in the area to validate that notion. <S> Western Yellow Pines Not as dense as the southern yellow pines, and a more regular grain. <S> A characteristic species here would be Jack Pine , which is one of the species commonly labeled as "SPF" in dimensional lumber; this has the qualities you're probably thinking of when you think of pine. <S> Lodgepole pine has a very straight trunk and is good for log cabins. <S> Ponderosa smells very nice when I'm hiking, like vanilla, though I'm not sure how useful that is to a woodworker. <S> Uses <S> I don't think you'll find very many redeeming qualities for the woods in general, but of note (aside from the cost) <S> they are very soft, and because of this are easy to work with. <S> This, combined with their cost, makes them great for beginners, and I like to use 2x4 lumber as test pieces before I make cuts on more expensive hardwood. <S> Pine is good for little projects that aren't expected to last long (unless well cared for: it's soft and easily dented/bruised), and aren't expected to be very pretty (unless you use good quality pine, not the construction grade SPF you'll find at a box store). <S> Additionally, as Caleb mentioned, It has a good strength for its lower density and is thus useful in situations where you want a strong but light product (this, aside from the cost, is part of why it's common in construction). <A> Does SPF, in general, have any redeeming qualities besides just being cheap Weight. <S> Fast-growing woods like soft pine, fir, and spruce have densities between about 20 and 30 lbs/ft 3 . <S> Hard woods like hard maple and oak are upward of 40 lbs/ft 3 . <S> The combination of strength and light weight makes spruce the standard choice for certain applications. <S> Sitka spruce is the go-to wood for use in aircraft. <S> Spruce is also the wood used for the tops of stringed instruments like violins and cellos. <S> We're obviously not talking about the SPF you'll find in your local home center, of course -- unlike the stuff they use for 2x4's, wood for instruments and airplanes is carefully selected. <S> Nevertheless, the stuff at your home center has a similar combination of strength and weight, and these uses might inform your own decision to use SPF when you need something that's strong but light. <S> Growth rate: <S> The SPF at your home center is cheap because it grows quickly, so there's plenty of it. <S> If we built all our buildings out of slow-growing hardwoods we'd surely be out of forests (or have far fewer buildings). <S> The price itself is an important factor, <S> the fact that SPF woods are so quickly renewable is the thing that really makes them useful. <A> Does SPF, in general, have any redeeming qualities besides just being cheap wood in both sense of the term? <S> but it's best considered not in isolation, rather in concert with its physical properties. <S> a large tenancy to all kinds of warping. <S> This is more about the quality of the wood available from certain vendors than inherent to the species themselves. <S> The usual rule applies: careful stock selection is the first step. <S> So assuming good raw material to start with, it is strong enough and resilient enough for many jobs that some modern woodworkers don't consider it suitable for. <S> But looking at historical pieces made in pine and spruce is informative, showing just how suitable the wood can be in furniture applications. <S> Bearing in mind the weight, densities and strengths of various hardwoods in comparison, in order to have equal strength pieces made in softwood species must by necessity use thicker material which can of course be a disadvantage. <S> But that can be turned on its head: if what is desired is a thicker, chunkier piece you can specifically make it from softwoods in order that the finished item is not excessively heavy. <A> Mostly, pine is fast-growing and hence inexpensive. <S> And its relative softness is occasionally an advantage. <S> And it can have interesting grain, <S> though staining it requires some tricks to avoid blotching; in that regard it may sometimes have an advantage over poplar, which is one of the fastest-growing of the hardwoods (and which in fact is generally a bit softer than pine).
| Low cost is one of the main advantages of pine and other softwoods
|
What do I need to know for basic lathe safety? I am a complete beginner to turning, I have a set of tools arriving in a week or so, and want to make sure I'm not going to make a mistake and injure myself. What are basic safety precautions when using a lathe to turn bowls and spindles? <Q> Wear safely glasses or a full-face mask <S> every time you turn, no exceptions. <S> Dust mask or respirator advisable normally but essential when sanding. <S> Tie long hair back. <S> No long sleeves. <S> Take off rings, bangles, bracelets or a wristwatch. <S> Consider whether it would be safer to remove any necklace, crucifix or medallion worn around the neck. <S> (hang them or use a magnetic holder near the on-off switch so you can't forget). <S> Check clearance of stock from the tool rest by rotating the workpiece by hand before turning the motor on. <S> Start at low speed. <S> Turn off lathe if making adjustments. <S> Check <S> your turning tools are sharp before using. <S> Try to have two hands on the turning tools at all times (not always possible but good general practice). <S> If doing groove burning never hold wire, cord or string in the fingers. <S> Last but not least: do not do any turning when tired, sleepy, emotionally upset or after imbibing alcohol or taking any medication that may make you drowsy or forgetful. <A> Just adding to Graphus's excellent answer. <S> The piece of wood is the dangerous part. <S> It is moving up to 4000 rpm depending on settings and lathe. <S> you will want to take small cuts, being too aggressive is dangerous, especially for a new turner. <S> Being too aggressive can either stop the wood, (which isn't good for the lathe) or try and yank the turning tool out of your hand, which is very dangerous to the turner. <S> Securing your turning piece <S> well is very important <S> , I have had a couple pieces fly off the lathe, after the first one bounced off my chest (it hurt) <S> I learned to stand off-center to the rotation of bowls. <S> If your lathe has a safety cage, I would recommend using it (generally on larger lathes because you can have larger pieces mounted). <S> You should also have a good solid stance that will let you move back and forth without losing your balance, you don't want to fall into your piece. <A> To add to the previous points: <S> Just as taking light cuts is wise, reducing lathe speed is wise until confidence is gained with a given tool. <S> Catches are much less severe with lighter cuts and slower speeds. <S> A very good acronym for lathe tool handling: ABC’S OF WOODTURNING <S> A is for anchor-put the tool on the tool rest <S> B is for bevel- rest the bevel of the tool on the work piece <S> C is for cut- bring the cutting edge into position <A> Read that. <S> The items on the accepted answer are a good start, but I'd add a few more: <S> Keep fingers away from the front of the tool rest. <S> Don't wear gloves. <S> Stand to the side when turning the lathe on. <S> If the workpiece is going to fly off the lathe, it'll usually happen when starting. <S> Observers should always stand to the side or (better) behind a shield. <S> A full face shield is better than safety glasses. <A> I've never actually done any woodturning myself, but I've done some reading and from what I hear, if I were doing it I would (in addition to the other excellent answers) want to wear a protective apron (see below) and a full face visor. <S> It's particularly important to be aware of any faults with the piece you're turning. <S> If the wood has any major cracks, fissures etc, and particularly when turning burls (which are quite commonly made into bowls), the piece can basically explode and fling a large chunk of material at you very fast. <S> I think generally if you're working with sound timber then you should be mostly fine in this regard, but it's still a good idea to stand "out of the line of fire <S> " i.e. don't stand directly in line with where you're cutting the wood. <A> I have never done any wood turning, but I did a mechanical engineering apprenticeship. <S> When we were in the turning section if the instructor ever caught us taking our hand away from the chuck and leaving the chuck key in we were punished, you soon learn to keep that chuck key in your hand, no exceptions. <S> This lesson has stayed with me throughout my life and even now when I tighten the chuck on the pillar drill still keep the key in my hand.
| Remember to remove chuck keys or any other tools used to tighten any parts before turning on I would also recommend a nice thick floor mat to stand on to save your lower back. Always wrap around scrap wood handles. Remove tool rest before sanding. The American Association of Woodturners (AAW) web site has an excellent page on safety with a long list of points. You wouldn't want to get pinched between the tool rest and the workpiece.
|
When do I need to use a router table instead of a handheld router? I was looking at the directions that came with my 1/2" shank 3/4" tongue and groove router bit, and noticed that it recommended it be mounted on a router table for improved safety. Which got me thinking, is there a general cutoff for when a router bit is too big to use in a handheld router? I figure bit diameter and profile both figure in, with the diameter playing the largest part. <Q> Use the router freehand if the piece is too large to safely move across the router table. <S> If using the router freehand, plan on using some sort of jig or fixture to direct the router. <S> A guide bearing on the bit works as a sort of jig. <S> In general, if you don't feel you can completely control the router, build a jig or a fixture to contain it. <A> I would guess it is more profile and <S> how much wood you both expect to remove and how much surface area you have in contact with the wood. <S> The shank size is only the first indication. <S> I haven't seen any 1/4" bits that 'Need' to be mounted in a router table. <S> However that doesn't mean that you can't benefit from doing so. <S> The larger shank bits allow for a larger torque to be placed on them and to be used in larger machines. <S> They also will tend to have less vibration movement for a cleaner cut (At least that is what I have read). <S> When it is easy to use my Shaper (like a mounted table router but slower and more powerful) I will. <S> Bits that cut the 'tongue' in tongue and groove, raised panel bits, shapers for moldings and such should really be mounted in a table for best results and safest practices. <S> But just because it's a 1/2" shank doesn't mean you have to use it that way. <S> If it is a 3/4" straight bit on a 1/2" shank it will be just as safe as a 1/4" shank, and will likely have a cleaner cut. <S> I would like to replace all my bits with 1/2" shank bits (at least the ones that I can) <A> Larger bits will generally recommend that they be used in a router table or with a speed control or both. <S> That bit is spinning very fast. <S> Even with a small-radius bit it's moving past the wood at a pretty good clip. <S> Increase the radius, and the linear speed at which the bit hits the wood also increases by the same ratio. <S> If a large bit takes too deep a cut and kicks, it will kick hard . <S> In that situation you want the wood to go flying, not the router with its still-spinning bit... <S> so it's safer to anchor the router in place and bring the wood to it than the reverse. <S> There are other advantages <S> go working with a router table that make it a worthwhile investment; it makes some tasks much easier than freehand routing. <S> Think of it as a basic adjustable jig for the tool. <S> Like an edge guide but <S> more so. <S> (Reminds me that I need to put an edge guide on my want list.)
| Use the router table if the piece is too small to have the router base firm against the work piece.
|
What is this type of screw from a piece of flat-pack furniture called? Does anyone know what this type of screw is called in the UK? I ask because I have some flat pack furniture that has been sitting in the attic for ages, and now I try to assemble it I find some of the screws are missing. Unless I can buy some more screws like the one pictured I'm going to have fun trying to assemble the furniture. The screw has a 4mm hex socket in the end. I'd guess they're targetted at us amateur flat pack assemblers rather than the professional woodworkers. But as I don't know what this type of screw is called I don't even know where to start Googling. Later: Many thanks to everyone who answered. Several people suggested this is a custom made screw and I suspect they are correct. The paperwork with the furniture (a bed) is missing, but I think it is this bed made by Birlea . With clues from all the answers I've found several similar screws - they all have sharp points but I don't think that matters as I suspect the tips have been removed just to stop amateurs like me impaling themselves. The closest seems to be these screws from Spax , though they are startlingly expensive! Searching for timber construction screws , lag screws and coach screws returns an array of likely looking hits. <Q> The coarse thread of the screw in your photo looks meant for use with particle board or soft woods, much like confirmat screws . <S> Screws with a blunt point like <S> the one in your photo are known as "type b self tapping" screws. <S> You use them with predrilled holes, and the thread on the screw cuts threads into the material. <S> But I don't think I've ever seen that type of point on a screw with a socket head -- your example looks like the offspring of a confirmat screw and a connector bolt , and I suspect it's custom hardware made for a large manufacturer like IKEA rather than a standard part. <S> Your best bet would be to order additional screws from the manufacturer. <A> Sometimes the various types of screws for knock-down furniture are also called furniture screws or furniture bolts. <S> Sometimes when I don't know what something is called, I take it to the local hardware store and try to find something that looks the same. <S> Often they don't have the right size but sometimes they have something similar enough that I know what term to use when trying to find them elsewhere. <A> To me it looks like a "Lag Screw" with the tip cut off. <S> Here are some that appear to be closer <S> And even closer I just searched for ' Flat Pack Bolts '
| To me it looks like a type of joint connector screw or connector bolt.
|
Can I make a dado blade set out of multiple regular blades? Lets say, for argument sake, that I have 2 or 3 10" blades for my table saw. That would give me just under 3/8 inches, when all mounted together, which I could use to make dadoes. With what I have available this would be easier than constantly stopping my saw to adjust my fence to enlarge my dadoes. I could easily see this being a bad idea since the blade kerfs could touch while the saw is operating. Also sawdust might get stuck between the blades. Has anyone tried this before? <Q> There's another factor you're not considering: torque requirements. <S> There's a reason the majority of dado sets are 6" or 8" in diameter. <S> Most table saws won't have the power to run a 10" set. <S> A 10" set will require 25% more torque than an 8" set, and 67% more torque than a 6" set. <S> Not surprisingly, Matthias over at Woodgears has written an article about doing more or less the same thing you're proposing. <S> Except he solves the torque problem by using multiple 7-1/4" blades. <A> Make the outer cuts first <S> and then you have a reference for where the blade should go; the middle cuts aren't that important to get accurate. <S> Or set the fence for the left most cut and clamp a piece of wood the with the same thickness of as the width of the desired dado minus the kerf of the blade. <S> You make the cut and then remove the block on the fence and cut again. <S> then between those positions you can cut repeatedly and clean up with a chisel. <A> The other thing you're missing is that dado sets also come with shims to fine tune the width. <S> This is especially important if you're using plywood, as thicknesses of plywood varies greatly. <S> Also, dado sets have the middle blade with flat cutting edges so that you get flat bottoms. <S> Look at your regular saw blades, the teeth are angled, which would create a very slight "V" shape on the bottom of the dado. <S> If you're doing so many dados as to warrant using multiple blades, I would encourage you to just spend the couple of extra bucks on a dado set. <S> They're only 100 bucks or so. <A> Our shop teacher used five separate 7-1/4" blades to make a dado on a 10" table saw in 7th grade wood shop. <S> He did this to show us that you could safely make a dado cut even without the specific blade.
| Instead of making a dado blade you can instead use a sled and then move the workpiece side to side on that to enlarge the dado.
|
What kind/style of respirator is appropriate for someone with a beard? In this answer , it is noted that a woodworker with a beard should consider a positive airflow respirator due to the beard preventing a good seal. I have also seen (on metalworking forums) the suggestion of a full face respirator. How much does having a beard affect the effectiveness of a "normal" respirator like this one? <Q> A beard will cause leakage around a standard half-mask "passive" respirator. <S> The respirator's effectiveness will vary depending on how thick your beard is and how tightly the respirator fits over your beard, but keep in mind that air will follow the path of least resistance. <S> Your beard won't provide anywhere near the filtration of a P100 cartridge which removes 99.97% of particles 0.3 microns and larger. <S> Some air will probably still pass through the filter, but if it's easier for the air to flow through your beard than through the respirator's filter, the respirator won't be very effective. <S> You should consider using a positive pressure respirator, also called a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR). <S> This type of respirator pulls air in through a filter and exhausts the filtered air inside the respirator, producing continuous outward leakage. <S> ( Source ) <S> One disadvantage of the all-in-one units as pictured above is that they are heavy. <S> Some other variations use a belt- or backpack-mounted motor. <S> ( Source ) <A> Standard test for respirator seal; put it on your face without the straps. <S> Cover the inlets with your palms.. <S> Suck in a breath and hold it. <S> It should maintain the resulting partial vacuum for a reasonable time. <S> If it doesn't, some air is sneaking in around the mask every time you breathe in; the better the filters the more leakage past them. <S> Better than nothing, but <S> you aren't getting the protection you should. <S> Positive pressure does solve that problem; any leakage is clean to dirty rather than the other way around. <S> (my beard comes and goes; the moustache mostly stays.) <A> I use (and recommend) a product called Resp-o-Rator. <S> It has a scuba-style mouthpiece that routes over your shoulders to two HEPA filters that are positioned behind your head. <S> It's passive <S> (no power required), lightweight, and inexpensive. <S> http://www.duckworksbbs.com/tools/resp/ <S> For what it's worth, I don't use the nose clip and haven't had any issues. <S> If you can't breathe through your mouth without plugging your nose, though, it might be problematic. <A> I use the 3m PAPR which has now been updated and looks to be way better than mine. <S> I do like what feels like a cool breeze on my face when wearing it. <S> The belt does not work for me, I had to buy tool belt suspenders, the face shield falls apart quite often when flipping up and down, I must disassemble it and re-assemble whenever this happens. <S> I bought mine in 2008, I still can still get probably 8 hours on each battery, I have an extra which it did not come with. <S> It was very expensive <S> but I have occupational related asthma <S> and it works to protect me. <S> It is very awesome when using a router.
| One additional advantage of powered full-face respirators over a typical full-face shield is that the continuously-circulating air prevents the face shield from fogging up.
|
How to protect worn wooden outdoor furniture? I inherited some wooden patio furniture from a previous owner that looks like it's been through a lot: I love the raw, unfinished look of this stuff, but I'd also like it to last another dozen years without being annihilated by the West Coast rain and damp. What should I do to protect this furniture that won't totally change the look? <Q> Unfortunately there's no product that'll really do what you want here. <S> You can certainly add protection but everything will change some aspect of the current appearance. <S> A good oiling (with periodic maintenance each year) will add protection, it won't stop further degradation but it will limit it. <S> However it will also significantly alter the colouration as both boiled linseed oil and tung oil (the two main oils used for exterior applications) are some sort of amber colour and impart a noticeable yellowness once a few coats have been applied. <S> A good exterior varnish like spar varnish is also noticeably yellow. <S> Also very glossy. <S> There are clear finishes that would provide very good weather protection, including notably epoxy finishes intended for marine applications, but they require a good film to be applied to work well and hence are also very glossy. <S> This gloss can be reduced somewhat by rubbing down, but they'll still feel like they're coated. <S> Also, there's no absolute guarantee <S> a film finish (varnish, lacquer or epoxy) will adhere properly to the wood in this condition. <S> Standard advice for finishing is always to apply to a sound, clean surface, which these obviously don't have. <A> Graphus did an excellent job running down finishes and what you'll get. <S> The one thing I would add is to keep them close to their current state and significantly reduce their decline <S> is to keep them out of the rain. <S> Either put them away when you don't need them (huge pain, I'd almost never bother to take them back out!) or put them under some kind of awning at or near where you want to use them. <S> (another woodworking project!) <A> It is lightly pigmented and comes in a variety of colors (including gray). <S> The stuff is easy to apply and the oil soaks into the wood with no need to worry about brush strokes, peeling or blistering. <S> The grain of the wood still shows through and it does not have the sheen of a surface treatment. <S> It can be pricey, but sometimes you can get lucky with a sale.
| You could try a semi-transparent oil-based stain of the type that is frequently used for fences and decks.
|
What type(s) of glue can I use on wooden kitchen utensils and devices? If I want to repair a kitchen utensil and want to be (totally) sure there is nothing poisonous, cancerous, allergenic, [fill in your adjective] in the glue. What should I choose? Fish glue, rabbit glue, horse glue, [favourite animal] glue springs to mind but I doubt these stand kitchen use with warm water and normal abuse. Besides - if I don't happen to have a horse ripe for slaughter I have to buy the glue already bottled and then there might be preservatives in the glue to keep the, former, horse from developing a new skin of mold fur... It seems to be more complex than just a "read on the bottle". There is some info on wood whisperer and properly cured epoxy should be safe . <Q> Be sure to read the label to confirm that the specific PVA glue you plan to use is, indeed, non-toxic. <S> Hide glue is non-toxic but as you mentioned, the glue bond can be broken with heat--a feature that is desirable in some applications. <S> It may hold up well enough in the kitchen, but it probably wouldn't work well for a trivet or anything that you plan to wash in the dishwasher or which may be otherwise subjected to high heat. <S> For small repairs, CA glue (cyanoacrylate), more commonly considered superglue, is mildly toxic but can be considered non-toxic for most practical purposes (especially after curing). <S> However, CA glue accelerators (used to make CA glue cure more quickly) are toxic. <S> Again, read the label or MSDS sheet for the particular formulation you plan to use. <S> As you pointed out in your question, epoxy is also often considered food-safe after it is fully-cured. <A> If I want to repair a kitchen utensil and want to be (totally) sure there is nothing poisonous, cancerous, allergenous (is that a word?), [fill in your adjective] <S> You can't be totally sure. <S> To be more specific: you can't be totally sure. <S> Individual responses to certain compounds or chemicals always trump general reassurances and the "safe for direct food contact" OK from a government agency such as the FDA in America. <S> However, given the hidden chemicals within plastic and rubber-like materials in common usage in kitchens — for utensils, cutting boards and bakeware — all of which come into direct contact with food, it seems a little disproportionately cautious to be worried about a possible chemical leaching from a single glue joint, that doesn't directly contact food, on only a single utensil. <S> Fish glue, rabbit glue, horse glue, [favourite animal] glue springs to mind <S> but I doubt these stand kitchen use with warm water and normal abuse. <S> If the joint is made correctly any protein glue should be more than strong enough because any well-made glued joint is at least as strong as the surrounding wood. <S> But all of these glues will weaken in the presence of both heat and moisture. <A> There is also cyanacrylate glue. <S> It should be usable close to food since variants of it can be used with wounds .
| PVA glues such as Titebond are generally non-toxic and are considered safe enough to use in cutting boards, butcher blocks, and other food-safe applications.
|
Best method for drilling a larger diameter hole at an angle I spent the weekend making a simple wine rack out of cedar for my mother as a gift. I drilled 1.5" holes in a cedar 2x6 to make something like this: So to keep the bottles inverted (keep the cork wet) you have to drill down at a 45 degree angle or so. I used a 1.5" bit to drill the holes but it was real sloppy and well it just didn't go great. So. What is the best way to drill a 1.5"+ hole at an angle through a 2x6? Recommended tools/bits (not looking for a brand obviously) should be included unless there is an easy way to do this free hand... <Q> Similar to bowlturner's answer, my answer depends on having access to a drill press. <S> However, I suggest you use a few jigs. <S> I've done similar projects, and the biggest problem is that a forstner bit tends to skate around when you're dealing with angles that steep. <S> (There's nothing for the center point to grab into until you're 1/2 way through the piece.) <S> The jig below gets clamped to your drill press table, and consists of three parts: an angled wedge that sets the angle for the hole. <S> a backer board to keep tear-out to a minimum and to keep from drilling into your wedge. <S> a wedge with a hole drilled in it that guides the forstner bit and keeps it from moving around. <S> How do you make the wedge? <S> Simple- take a square block (or make a square block from two smaller pieces) and drill a hole with the forstner bit. <S> Then take that piece to the band saw, turn it up on edge, and slice from one corner to the other, at an angle the same as you want to duplicate. <S> Slide the whole contraption together, clamp it securely to your drill press table, and drill away. <S> You might have to clamp this to the edge of your drill press table, so that the workpiece can hang below the table for holes further up the workpiece. <A> Personally, I would use my drill press. <S> The bed will tilt to any angle and then you just clamp the board to the bed. <S> You would need a piece of waste wood under the board so not to put the bit into the metal bed. <S> I think Forstner bits would be the better idea for doing this though <S> using a spade bit might be possible, if you lower it slow enough, I don't think I'd recommend it. <S> 45 degrees is pretty steep for a hand held drill, but by starting it and slow tilting the drill to the correct angle while keeping the tip in the wood might give you something close to what you are looking for, but I'd stick with a drill press, much safer and more accurate. <A> As bowlturner mentioned, a drill press with a Forstner bit is the first solution that comes to mind. <S> If you don't have a drill press, another solution is to cut the corner off a block of scrap wood at a 45-degree angle. <S> Use a brad point, auger, or twist bit to drill straight through the newly-cut end, and clamp it to your workpiece for each hole. <S> If you've ever used a Kreg pocket hole jig, this is basically the same concept. <S> Edit: after I clicked Submit to post my answer I noticed that TX Turner posted a somewhat similar solution for the drill press at about the same time as me. <S> The guide block I'm suggesting is different in that it's a little easier to clamp since you're clamping flat pieces together instead of wedges. <S> You can also use any flat backer board to prevent blowout, and you can easily register it against stop blocks on your workpiece for more precise hole placement. <A> What is the best way to drill a 1.5"+ hole at an angle through a 2x6? <S> You'll want some means to guide the drill, though -- either a drill press, or a guide block as illustrated in some of the other answers, or an angle drill guide . <S> (Just know that everyone I know who bought an angle guide eventually switched up to a drill press. <S> Angle guides are the push reel mowers of woodworking. <S> If you're going to drill another 20 angled holes, get the drill press, even a bench top model.) <A> I just stumbled upon this thread as I'm also trying to make a riddling rack. <S> I came across a portable drill <S> guide jig which seems like it would be another potential solution, although perhaps more expensive than the wedge option if you have a drill press. <S> Cheaper ones exist, but may not be as good. <A> The way I do this kind of thing, is easily, freehand <S> If you make all your marks, a bit low, then start off with a small bit (maybe 1/8") and predrill to about a quarter inch and punch all the marks with it <S> so they have a starting point for a bigger bit. <S> It doesn't matter how deep really, if you go too deep, it will look bad. <S> Don't go deep. <S> then take your larger bit, and start it until it goes all the way in until the crown has gotten level with the surface, meaning, the hole is now as wide as its going to get. <S> Then while holding the drill still in motion, preferably a higher wood speed, start to tilt it. <S> It's that easy. <S> Have something, like a thin long nail, or something in one of the guide holes to have guide angle template. <S> SO, each hole, after predrilling, enlarge your hole fullsize, keep motor running, tilt drill to proper angle, then go to depth. <S> extraction is your best guess, either motor on, or motor off, but i think on. <S> This is also probably the way the one in the picture was done, because its not exact.. <S> but i did learn something new from the pros, with their guides they mentioned :-) <A> If you don't have access to a drill press then this two-step approach might work: <S> Drill a guide hole at the desired angle. <S> You can cut a 2x4 at the exact angle using a radial saw and use it as a jig for the drill (see photos below). <S> Use a hole saw with a pilot bit (or a forstner bit) to cut the larger hole using the initial guide hole for precision.
| For drilling such large holes at an angle, a sawtooth Forstner bit is the right tool for the job.
|
Is it OK to re-use an old iron wedge when handling an axe? I've got an old axe that has a handle slipping down the head. This danger sign means the axe needs a new handle right away. Looking on Ebay the iron wedges that I'll need are about £4 for 4. This seems like a bit much for four tiny pieces of iron, and there's already one in the axe handle. Is there any harm in removing the old iron wedge from the old handle and re-using it? I like to re-use where I can, especially when it avoids waste or extra cost, and as I'll be making the handle myself the small amount of money for the new wedges seems like a lot. I don't want to do it if it might cause a safety issue though, and this will be my first re-handling of an axe. <Q> If the wedge hasn't had most of it snapped off, there's nothing stopping you from reusing it. <S> However, it's often the case that the previous wedge was only driven in a couple of 'steps' and was cut down flush with the head. <S> If that's the case, you'd have to be perfect in your handle making, and know the wood perfectly, so as to size the head to fit the already cut wedge. <A> Often it is the wedges that get loose, fall out <S> and then I'm in need of more to fix either the ax or the maul. <S> But as long as they are large enough to work, they are good to be reused. <S> Even my black smithing teacher does it, though it takes him 5 minutes to make new ones... <A> Is there any harm in removing the old iron wedge from the old handle and re-using it? <S> None at all. <S> In fact almost all hammer and axe re-handling guides will suggest you do your best to keep the previous wedge or wedges to use again. <S> I've re-handled three old hammers <S> so far, managed to reuse the wedges for all three even if badly rusted. <S> Assuming the old wedge(s) aren't damaged the only reason I can think of not to use them again <S> is if you want to use a different style of wedge that you like the look of more (I'm thinking of ring wedges) or you believe is more secure. <S> If there are any worries about how well the old wedge will hold, simple and very effective wedges can be made quite easily from mild steel if suitable stock material can be found, or from annealed tool steel with a little more effort. <S> All that's required in terms of tools is a hacksaw, a mill file and a twist drill bit of the right diameter, along with a clamp or vice of some kind, to yield wedges of this type: <S> I'll be making the handle myself <S> Few tips then <S> : If you haven't chosen your wood to use yet don't sweat it if you can't locate some hickory. <S> Axe, hammer and maul handles were made in Europe for many centuries before hickory was ever heard of. <S> Ash makes for very good handle stock. <S> Select your piece of wood with care; it's said that a good piece of lesser wood makes a better handle than one made from a poor piece of a better wood <S> and I believe this to be true. <S> Part of choosing a good piece is the grain orientation within the eye of the axe head. <S> Endeavour to have the grain oriented the ideal way, that is: back to front, not across. <S> Try to limit grain run-out when shaping the length of the handle. <S> Make sure the wood for both the haft and the wooden wedge are both quite dry, otherwise they will shrink at some point and the handle will come loose. <S> The wooden wedge goes back to front, the metal wedge goes across (splitting the wooden wedge). <S> English oak makes a very good choice for wooden wedges if you have any.
| I always reuse my wedges when I haven't lost them.
|
Is there a reason not to glue a wooden bolt into its threads? I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my new tapping set from Beall and one of the uses I was thinking about was creating a mallet--turn a head and then tap a hole and screw in a wooden handle (I have a couple other similar projects on the docket as well). Now other than not being able to easily remove the handle (should I break it or want a different one), is there any other reason not to do it? Even on the flip side, are there very good reasons to do it? (I'm thinking it won't come loose when in use!) <Q> is there any other reason not to do it? <S> If you really want it glued, there's no problem with gluing it. <S> But the whole point of using threads instead of glue or a wedged through tenon is that you can disassemble a threaded connection. <S> are there very good reasons to do it? <S> Two, that I can think of: <S> Although threads cut in wood are plenty strong for many uses, they are cut across the grain and can break. <S> If the threads are at all loose, the force of a mallet blow might be applied to just a part of the threads and cause them to break. <S> Glue could help support the threads and spread the force of the blow more evenly. <S> If your mallet handle isn't round, then you'll want it to maintain a particular orientation relative to the head. <A> If I were to glue it, I would just make a standard taper joint with a wedge in the end - much simpler. <S> Gluing it would give you the strength of a mechanical connection with the permanence of glue, but you could get very nearly the same strength by just threading it, and basically draw boring the head in. <S> Once the handle is threaded on, drill a hole through the head, into and through the screws, and put in a screw or dowel to hold it in place. <A> As Caleb mentioned, the entire point of using a threaded joint is to make it easy to disassemble--typically to replace a part or to break something down for storage. <S> If you want a permanent connection, you're wasting time, effort, and possibly money (if you had to buy the tap specifically for this project) by threading and then permanently gluing the connection. <S> If you want to be able to disassemble the joint later but want to lock the threads in place in the meantime you can use hide glue. <S> When you need to disassemble the joint in the future, you can simply heat up the joint and unscrew it. <S> But then again, you could do the same with a plain old mortise and tenon. <S> ... <S> on the flip side, are there very good reasons to [glue a wooden bolt into its threads]? <S> Sure... <S> if making a threaded wooden rod (e.g., for a vise) that will only ever need to be detached at one end, or perhaps will never need to be detached. <S> if you want to get practice tapping threads <S> but you want to knock out a few projects at the same time. <S> if you have a design that uses threads as visual elements but which is never supposed to be dismantled (e.g., maybe some wooden threaded rods used as through cross-bracing between legs on a stool. <S> if it comes unscrewed when you don't want it to, and you've decided you never want it to come unscrewed again. <A> I concur with LeeG's answer. <S> Put the whole thing through and use another piece of wood through the thread as a stop. <S> Reusable Handle <S> If you don't seal the handle in the head then you could use it with multiple heads if you so desired. <S> If you wanted to make the handle something more that just stick with threads <S> then not glue would be preferential. <S> Say if you were to turn one and put a grip on it? <S> Then you wouldn't need to make a bunch. <S> Or if your head broke you can reuse the handle. <S> Glue <S> could weaken While this would take time, actually using the mallet, could weaken the glue joint. <S> I have seen this happen with shop brooms. <S> Since you are threading it I would see this process taking a while <S> but I suspect it will happen. <S> Using a stop like a piece of dowel wouldn't be a bad idea. <S> Perhaps you could do both. <S> Might be overkill for just a mallet though. <S> I guess I'm suggesting it is wasted effort to glue it. <S> If the glue did break the seal the mallet could move while you are using it. <S> Another useful point would be if you get tapping happy then you could use the same handle for multiple tools. <S> Mine is just an old croquet mallet that I adjust periodically with wedges as it moves. <A> Now other than not being able to easily remove the handle <S> (should I break it or want a different one), is there any other reason not to do it? <S> I think that losing the ability to easily re-handle is the main reason not to do it. <S> I don't imagine you'll have any problems with a threaded handle staying tight in use without any glue. <S> Even on the flip side, are there very good reasons to do it? <S> (I'm thinking it won't come loose when in use!) <S> To be honest I can't think of one! <S> If you want one extra bit of security, before threading you can dry out the end of the handle stock by placing near a heat source for a couple of hours, then thread and screw home. <S> As the handle's moisture content comes into equilibrium it will swell, locking it even more firmly in place. <S> At a guess for most woods this is likely to result in the fixture becoming permanent; a thorough waxing of the threads might prevent this but no way to be sure.
| It'd be hard to thread the handle so that it bottoms out with the handle in exactly the right position, so you'd need glue or some other means of keeping the handle oriented correctly.
|
At what stage of basic furniture making should I "finish" the wood? I have purchased wood in order to make some basic furniture: One of these will be placed outside (simple table), One inside the bathroom, (basic chest of drawers) And another in the hall way (shoe rack). I've already done some work, ie, cutting the wood to size, preparing parts for joining the pieces etc. Currently I'm in the process of trying to find what materials I will need to finish the wood (and learn how to) for each of these items I'm building. My question is: When do I need to "treat" / finish the wood, ie, sand and apply these coatings? Is it before I join the pieces, or after once everything is assembled? <Q> Surfaces that are going to be glued together don't need (and shouldn't have) <S> finish as this will weaken the bond, and the glue itself and adjoining wood should protect the wood (choose a suitable glue for the environment). <S> Surfaces that will never be taken apart but will not be glued (some joinery, for instance) probably don't need finishing prior to joining them. <S> This is a gray area, and will depend on the joint. <S> The primary goal is that exposed wood that isn't intentionally exposed will be protected. <S> However, other parts that are fit together using other fastening methods should be finished before assembly. <S> Even small spaces admit moist air, and those spaces may expand or contract based on humidity, so may admit water or other environmental contaminants. <S> Without protection on the interior facing pieces of the wood you risk visible damage over time in some environments. <S> Finishing as a step to preserve the wood in the environment it is going to be placed should help guide your decision as to when to finish. <S> If you do it solely for looks, you may be happy with the results if you perform it after assembly, but time may show that protection should have been your goal during finishing, and not just looks. <A> You can apply finish at whatever time is easiest to do so. <S> Sometimes you will want to sand and finish one side of a board before final assembly, if it would be difficult to reach afterwards. <S> The insides of small boxes are much easier to sand as flat boards than after they are assembled. <S> You do have to take more care in handling already finished boards. <S> If you choose to apply a finish prior to glue up, remember to tape off the area of the joint that will receive the glue - glue will not bond well to a finish. <A> There is a reason it is called 'finishing' <S> it is the last step to complete or 'finish' your project. <S> Sanding can be done at different stages, usually you won't sand a piece before you glue a flat surface together. <S> So if you are gluing a table top you will want to glue all the pieces together first, then sand them all, because often you will need to sand after to make all the joints flat and even. <S> However, sanding the rails under the table before you attach them is a good idea because it is easier to do it before you get more corners to worry about. <S> Now where you might put a finish on before final assembly is when item in question breaks down and the parts are often separate. <S> Say the leaves from a dining table or the legs that are attached by bolts. <S> But anything that will be permanently put together should have the finishing last. <A> In some cases where you might need an even finish (like in a waterproofing situation) you might want to finish the pieces before final assembly. <S> I'd argue that for most situations, I wait until the end of the project to finish it, except if visible surfaces would be hard to finish when it is assembled.
| I recommend you apply any finishing products before final assembly, but after any gluing or other permanent assembly. The answer is usually "it depends."
|
What might be stronger than a miter but still look like a miter joint? In this bench, the joints appear to be simple miters; however, I can't believe that this piece would be stable with a simple miter. How might this joint be constructed so that it is strong enough to prevent racking but still appear to be a miter? <Q> There are many hidden reinforcements you could use - biscuits, dowels, or more complex hidden joints such as these: Mitred corner dovetail joint <S> Mitred blind dovetail joint ... <S> but I wouldn't recommend them unless you have a lot of skill with a chisel, and a lot of time on your hands. <S> Both of these images are from here <S> which is a really excellent site for all kinds of woodworking terms, and has lots of variations on common joints etc. <A> How might this joint be constructed so that it is strong enough to prevent racking but still appear to be a miter? <S> It's not racking <S> that is the major concern here <S> , it would be (probably sudden!) <S> failure of the glue line in one or both of the mitres. <S> The answers from WhatEvil and Matt cover many of the solutions. <S> There are a number of variations on blind dovetailed mitres, but the others are of increasing complexity and hence harder and harder to make accurately. <S> To add some details re. <S> splined mitres (a stopped splined mitre to be specific, also called a hidden spline mitre joint or blind <S> splined mitre joint): <S> With the bench being made from fairly beefy material it allows for quite a substantial spline being used, as I've illustrated above. <S> Even made from hardwood (with the grain oriented correctly, as shown) it is probably strong enough to be impossible to break in normal use, if plywood is used it would be stronger still. <S> Almost certainly overkill but for absolute assurance the spline could be made from metal (in which case it should be glued in place with epoxy or polyurethane adhesive). <S> Bonus joint: if a slight difference in appearance would be acceptable the rebated or rebbeted mitre joint could be used as well: <S> This is a significantly strong joint and may be the easiest wood-only solution as only three saw cuts are required per edge. <A> I've thought about this some more and have come up with an alternative solution. <S> If I had to make this bench and be sure that the joints won't break over time, I'd want to look at some real reinforcement... <S> how about a steel substructure? <S> So you have your basic bench structure which is made by lamination of smaller timber boards: <S> The fact that it's made of smaller timber boards allows you to sandwich the boards around a bent steel plate: <S> Cross section of the whole bench: Cross section through main part of bench showing steel housed within timbers, with optional dowel: <S> Fully exploded view: <S> So basically: Get 2 pieces of steel cut and folded (which should be quite cheap from a local fabricator), I have drawn them at 5mm thick with a 60mm timber thickness. <S> Get your constituent timber pieces for lamination and groove them out using a router or a circular saw. <S> I have shown a 10mm groove width to allow tolerance for the steel, though in reality the less tolerance you can have the better. <S> Optionally, drill dowel holes to aid in positioning / holding the whole thing together. <S> Glue the whole timber part of the bench up around the steels. <S> I'd advise either using an epoxy glue to glue the steel into the timber and take up any tolerance, or wedge the steel tightly into the timber using timber wedges or maybe standard plastic packers or wedges, but you can get away with using PVA wood glue for the timber itself. <S> Now you have a really sturdy bench that looks simply constructed, and isn't actually that hard to do. <S> If you build it right, this thing isn't breaking in a hundred years. <S> Bear in mind <S> this is just a concept. <S> You could use just one central steel, or 3 steels, or smaller, separate steel brackets at each end, or you could use biscuits to reinforce between the horizontals either side of the grooves. <S> The basic premise is the important thing and that's to build the laminations up around steel brackets in order to add hidden reinforcement. <A> While I may (justifiably) be shunned for bringing it up, it is possible to get right-angled dowels . <S> http://www.fastenersplus.com/90-degree-right-angle-furniture-dowel-pkg-3.html <S> This will prevent any motion of the pieces, but it's not what you call a purist approach to woodworking. <A> Metal Brace <S> This is not my area of specialty at all <S> but if I had to guess I would say that there are some metal brackets hiding underneath the joins that we cannot see. <S> Quite possibly in conjunction with what ever joint is hiding in there. <S> Just as long as they are a strong metal. <S> Not like the cheap ones made that are zinc plated you commonly find in hardware stores. <S> They will bend a twist without much effort. <S> Splined Mitre <S> I don't see this with a bench <S> but you could hide a large splinted mitre, <S> that does not transverse the entire width, reinforced with screws or bolts underneath. <S> Graphus has the correct terminology for this joint: <S> a stopped splined mitre to be specific, also called a hidden spline mitre joint or blind <S> splined mitre joint <S> I would be wary not using some metal hardware to reinforce this bench. <S> Most people don't lightly rest the bottoms on a bench. <A> Then, when you're all done, veneer the whole thing <S> so it looks like you used miter joints. <S> This wouldn't be my first choice, but the parts of the bench look thick enough that almost any material would be strong enough. <S> You could certainly achieve the same look with inexpensive materials, artificially-distressed veneers (even 1/8" or thinner might do it), and faux miter joints. <A> I own the bench along with the matching table. <S> It is a simple frame constructed with 2x3 dimension lumber; a simple reclaimed board veneer with miters.
| Besides mitered versions of various types of other sufficiently strong joinery methods, you could use non-mitered versions of any of those, and more (dovetail, dowels, Domino, mortise and tenon, box joints, dadoed/housed joints, knock-down hardware, etc.--perhaps even butt joints with countersunk lag screws), using any sufficiently strong material.
|
Size of a Joiner's Mallet I built my joiner's mallet when I was just getting started in woodworking. I hadn't seen too many mallets before then so I went with my gut instincts on size and dimensions. The result is a very hefty mallet made of hard maple and ash. This mallet works well for me and I barely have to move it to drive a chisel. I've used it for long periods of time with minimal fatigue. But I have to ask, is there some advantage I'm missing out on that a smaller mallet has to offer? <Q> I can't see the picture but I can just guess from .. <S> That's quite the mallet! <S> That size could cause some hardships.... <S> If it is really big then you can have potential issues if you are trying to make delicate taps on a chisel or some other tool like a punch for small pieces. <S> Sure, you could choke up but having a smaller mallet would be easier to handle I would say. <S> If you are comfortable with the changes in force relative to the size of the tools and application then this might not be a concern. <S> I can't think of a scenario for this <S> but it the mallet is large you might have trouble getting into smaller or awkward spaces. <S> Now that I have seen how big it is I could also see a problem with viewing your strikes. <S> While you might not need to I would see the need to try and look around the mallet to see where I'm striking. <S> That is mostly personal preference though. <S> There is no one telling you that you can't have more than one mallet ! <S> Build all the things. <S> Also, you say that you have used it for long periods of time with minimal fatigue . <S> That could be subjective. <S> I don't know what a long period of time is to you or how often you use it during that period. <S> While this is not true for you, others might see the weight (Usually those mallets use dense wood) causing strain over time. <A> is there some advantage I'm missing out on that a smaller mallet has to offer? <S> As to big and heavy being actively detrimental <S> I think that's a firm: it depends. <S> A physically smaller but still heavy striking implement (hammer, a lead-weighted mallet, or one made from lignum vitae or another heavyweight wood) could provide some benefits in some specific situations, purely as a matter of size and access. <S> There are plenty of purpose-made carver's mallets that are quite sizeable but generally these are scaled to the expected type of work, so big ones for large work and/or hogging off lots of material, regular-sized for pieces in a more 'normal' scale and smaller ones for working smaller or for use on miniature pieces. <A> momentum = <S> mass <S> * velocity <S> If you're hitting a framing chisel to hollow out a mortise in an oak beam, bigger is probably better. <S> But the goal isn't always to hit the chisel as hard as possible. <S> Given the equation above, you can see that you can achieve small amounts of momentum with a heavy mallet, but very small changes in velocity will produce relatively large changes in momentum because the mass of your mallet is so large. <S> The maximum momentum you can achieve with that smaller mallet will be less, of course, because there's a limit to how fast you can move the mallet. <S> But the difference in velocities required to generate gentle taps compared to firm taps will be greater, which makes it easier to regulate. <S> It's the same reason that hammers come in sizes ranging from 6oz or less all the way up to a 20lb sledgehammer: different tools for different jobs. <S> You could drive brads with a big sledgehammer, but you'd likely bend a number of them or hit your fingers because it's a lot harder to control than a small finishing hammer.
| If you need fine control over the energy you deliver to a chisel or gouge, a smaller mallet gives you more control within a given range by letting you use a wider range of velocities.
|
Is PVC pipe safe to use for a dust collection system? I'm in the early stages of designing a dust collection system for my home shop. My existing system, a dustpan and broom, is vastly inefficient for my setup, which includes a tablesaw, router table, planer, and various small power tools. Long-term, my goal is to plumb my shop to run ductwork to each of my three main tools from a centralized dust collector - I haven't yet mapped out a design for this, but the tool area of my shop is around 20x15, and I'd need to run to all three tools. When doing my initial research to get a feel for the costs, I've run into a variety of recommendations for materials to use. Some sites insist that PVC pipe is the best "affordable" option, while others strongly warn against using it due to static buildup. Most of the other options I read about are more expensive, often by a significant amount, so I want to know if it's possible to save money by using PVC, or if the risks outweigh the convenience. Is PVC a safe material to use in a dust collection system, and are there any specific precautions I need to take in order to use it? <Q> PVC is commonly used in dust collection systems. <S> Typically for longer runs you should use 6" or larger pipe, regardless of the material. <S> If you're using PVC, the larger, less expensive pipe is commonly available as sewer drain pipe. <S> As of May 2015, there have been no known fires caused by a static discharge in a PVC pipe from a dust collection system. <S> Because PVC is an insulator, you are more likely to get a number of small static discharges than a single large static discharge. <S> Only the surfaces of the pipe in direct contact with the wire will be grounded, and any points not in direct contact will not be grounded. <S> Grounding the outside is pointless because no charge will travel from the inside to the outside, or vice-versa. <S> If you suspend the wire directly through the middle of the pipe, you still won't collect and ground much charge because air is also an excellent insulator. <S> If you want to effectively ground the system, you need to entirely cover the inside of the pipe with a conductive coating, then ground the inside of the pipe to the components on either end of the pipe (dust collector and tool), as if you were running metal pipe. <S> Suffice it to say, it's a lot less work to just trust physics and use PVC pipe as-is without any extra unnecessary precautions. <S> If you're still concerned, I'd suggest reading the following articles, which cover the topic in much more depth: Exploding PVC Dust Collection Ductwork? <S> Grounding PVC and Other Dust Collection Myths <S> Lastly, keep in mind that if you are running a central dust collection system, you aren't going to get enough airflow or air velocity if you cheap out on the dust collector itself. <S> Once you've planned out your pipe, crunch the numbers with Bill Pentz's static pressure calculator (Excel spreadsheet) to find the CFM and static pressure requirements, and use those as the minimum specs when shopping for a dust collector. <A> I don't know about PVC tubing with regards to static build-up, but an important thing to consider that you may not have thought about is that having a small bend radius when you're going around corners etc. <S> can actually choke up your system and cause you to lose a lot of suction power, as it gives more resistance. <S> If you use standard PVC tubing and standard elbows, and you have to go around lots of bends then this could be an issue. <S> I'm also unsure of the abrasive-resistant properties of PVC, though depending on how much you'll be using it, this may not be a problem. <S> As for what I've seen used, I've only ever seen solid metal tubing, or flexible polyurethane tubing - the stuff with the wire wound through it in a spiral, like a spring: <S> This stuff is not drastically expensive and is easy to route and install as it's flexible. <S> I have no experience of PVC tubing as dust extraction, but I've always worked in a professional environment with purpose-made extraction. <S> There is however a discussion here which suggests that PVC is a very bad idea. <S> Personally I wouldn't take any chances with static discharge. <A> If you work in a professional wood shop (Oregon) use of PVC piping for combustible/wood dust collection is a no no and can get you a fine (Due to the static build up regardless of the use of a ground.) <S> It's more well known that using PVC for compressed air lines is a no no and a osha violation but same thing for ventilation / dust collection. <A> Our operator was injured from a static discharge of a PVC pipe entering his hand and exiting his elbow, so it is not a myth. <S> This was in a dust collection application.
| Even if you want to ground your PVC anyway, simply running a ground wire through the PVC will not be very effective because--as I mentioned before--PVC is an insulator and charge does not travel across it very easily. Remember that wood dust is highly flammable and at the right concentration in the air can even be explosive.
|
Are systainer tool cases of different companies compatible with each other? My router came in a plastic tool box called a systainer . It is made in a way that the bottom could interlock with the top. this means I could stack multiple of these boxes and lock them together for transport. I thought that this is a way to convince me to buy more tools from the same manufacturer. But recently I noticed that the tool boxes of a professional carpenter from festo look similar and I wondered if they would be compatible with mine.In a store I that visited today I saw that tool boxes from hitachi had a suspiciously similar shape and locking system. Are all these boxes in fact the same box system that different manufacturers use? Is this some kind of open standard like screw heads, bit diameters, etc.?Are the systainers from different brands compatible with each other? What other "features" does a systainer have? <Q> Systainers are all made by, or licensed from Tanos. <S> There are two main styles - the classic style and the TLoc. <S> The TLocs can stack on top of the classics, but not vice-verse. <S> Several vendors, most notably Festool, but also Metabo, Fein, Makita, Veritas, and Mirka <S> either use or offer as an option Systainers for their tool storage. <S> You can also purchase empty systainers. <S> There are 4 different footprint sizes of systainer. <S> Maxi are available only in the classic style. <S> Mini (10.43 <S> " wide x 6.73"deep x 2.80" high) <S> Normal (15.59"wide x 11.65" deep) and 4.13" - 16.53 <S> " high Midi (19.52" wide x 11.65 <S> " deep) and 6.2" - 8.26 <S> " high Maxi (23.46" wide x 15.59 <S> " deep) and 6.2" - 8.26 <S> " high Normal, Midi, and Maxi systainers are available in different heights. <S> Sys I - 4.13 <S> " Sys II - 6.20 <S> " Sys III - 8.26" Sys IV - 12.40" Sys V - 16.53" You can quickly determine the size of a systainer by looking at the horizontal ridges below the label area. <S> If there are none, it is a SYS 1, 1, a SYS 2, and so on, up to 4 for a SYS 5. <S> Drawer systainers are also available with several different drawer configurations. <S> They stack anywhere a classic systainer will. <S> See Lee Valley for other systainer options, including carts and toolboxes. <A> It depends. <S> The most notable feature of these storage systems is that you can stack one case on top of another and engage one or more latches to securely fasten it to the case below. <S> The idea is that you can stack as many as you want, though stacking them in this manner quickly becomes impractical in terms of actually accessing your tools. <S> ( Source ) <S> For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to use the term <S> compatible to refer to cases that were designed to latch together with strategically-placed latches, recesses, and tabs. <S> When two or more cases are latched together, you can lift a stack of them with a single handle. <S> Systainer is the brand-name for interlocking tool cases manufactured by Tanos. <S> The current line is called T-Loc, but these can still be stacked on top of the older Classic Systainers. <S> There are several competing lines of interlocking storage containers which are not compatible with Systainers. <S> For example: Bosch's L-Boxx line of tool cases is compatible with other L-Boxx cases manufactured by Sortimo, but not with Systainers. <S> DeWalt has two different lines of interlocking toolcases, Tough System and Tstak. <S> Unfortunately, you cannot mix-and-match between the two lines. <S> With most of the systems, the footprint is the same for all the cases in a product line, and the cases only vary in height. <A> I first bought a tool in a storage box from Bosch, it says Systainer on the lid <S> and I found that it would stack and lock onto Makita Makpac boxes even though the Makita lid edges were slightly rounded off on one side. <S> This is a shame as I now have one oddball case for a Bosch Professional 12v tool that does not stack tidily with all the rest.
| Stanley also sells its own interlocking tool cases, but their line is not as consistent--for example, the smaller-size Stanley cases are not compatible with the larger sizes, even though they use similar interlocking systems. Systainers included with Festool and Fein tools are compatible with each other, as well as with other Systainers manufactured by Tanos. Unfortunately Bosch have in recent years gone to a different design called the "L box" which is no longer compatible with Makpac. If you aren't sure whether a case will be compatible with your existing case(s), you can usually tell just by looking at the product dimensions.
|
What is the best way to cut pergola ends? I want to cut some of those decorative ends in a pergola that I'm making. I know that I can trace a pattern onto wood, cut with a jigsaw, rinse and repeat. I'm looking for a way to speed it up, and make the cuts more uniform. I was thinking perhaps I would make a template, use that template to route a shallow guide line, then quickly saw through all of the rest of it using the jigsaw. Any more suggestions? <Q> It depends on your pattern <S> It is the ideal choice for this work as some patterns are intricate with arcs and what not. <S> What you could do with the jigsaw is use your template as a guide. <S> If your arcs or curves are simple enough you can shift the template down from where the cut will be. <S> This might be difficult depending on the plate of your jigsaw and angles in your design. <S> That does not mean you are limited to just the jigsaw and the hand cramps that might ensue. <S> Depending on your pattern you might be able to use some other tools to do the work as well. <S> Mitre Saw <S> The jigsaw cuts a full arc across the board and then the mitre saw cuts the 45 degree angle. <S> Yes you could have done this all with the jigsaw but this is cleaner and faster. <S> The pencil mark on the saw is a guide so you don't need to measure every time. <S> Circular Saw <S> A simple pattern like that could almost be done just with a circular saw. <S> I doubt that is your pattern but one of the cuts might be. <S> You could make a simple jig for the saw using another board as a cutting guide. <S> Pattern Bit on a router <S> If your boards are thin enough, and you have a appropriately sized bit, you might be able just to use a pattern bit on your router (assuming it's big enough). <S> I have never tried a router as of yet but depending on how many cuts you need to make this might be over-kill for the router. <S> Even if your bits were long enough you could flip the board and template to cut from both sides. <S> In theory giving you that perfect cut you are looking for. <S> In conclusion <S> You didn't show us what you are doing. <S> Hopefully there might be a way of incorporating other tools into your template to help with that repeatable precision you are looking for. <S> Much like Caleb suggested your jigsaw and pencil will be your main tools here. <S> From the ground though I don't think people are going to be paying attention to the intricacy of your cuts. <S> Using a router I think is wasted effort. <A> I was thinking perhaps I would make a template, use that template to route a shallow guide line, then quickly saw through all of the rest of it using the jig saw <S> That sounds like more work than using a template to draw a pencil line and then following with the jigsaw alone. <S> If the jigsaw-only method gives you satisfactory results, that's probably the fastest. <S> For a cleaner cut, you could cut close to the template with a jig saw and then use a pattern bit in the router for the final cut. <S> That should go pretty quickly and give very good results. <S> The only problem is if there are inside corners in the profile: a router obviously can't get into tight corners. <A> The best and fastest way to get any such detail is by using a template and a router. <S> This is nothing that you haven't read or heard already I'm sure. <S> However, the best way to do this is to trace the template and then rough cut to within a 1/4" with a jig or circular saw. <S> The router bit will not produce a good result cutting through board, but will do best when only trimming it down to the template
| Most of the suggestions on the web refer to using the jigsaw for cutting patterns.
|
How to cut Plexiglas on a table saw? I'm building a router bit box to store all my router bits of various sizes (¼ and ½). I want to have a see-through closing lid. In order to do so, I will frame a sheet of Plexiglas (1/8" thick) in wood. I couldn't find a sheet with dimensions close to what I need, so I bought a bigger one. I now need to cut it to length. I wonder how should I do it on a table saw. I don't need a perfect cut. All four edges will be hidden by the wood frame. I've searched a bit online and people are suggesting a high teeth count blade. I'm thinking of using a cheap circular saw blade of 7¼" with 100 teeth or so. Will that give me an appropriate cut? <Q> Plexiglass works well with a craft knife too. <S> If you score it a couple of times with a straight rule, it should snap cleanly along the break. <A> Although you do want a high tooth count for a higher-quality cut, an ultra-high tooth count can be detrimental. <S> With a 100T 7-1/4" blade, you'll have to cut more slowly and may burn the plastic. <S> If using a 7-1/4" circular saw blade, use a high-quality 50-60 tooth blade, which will perform similarly to the 10" 80T blade that Aloysius Defenestrate's local plastics company recommended. <S> To help protect against chipout at the edges, you can either tape the cut line or you can sandwich your Plexiglas between two thin pieces of sacrificial plywood or MDF. <S> Assuming your plastic is, indeed, Plexiglas (acrylic), you can polish the edges with a torch. <S> Do NOT use a torch on the edges of Lexan (polycarbonate), because you'll just melt it. <S> If you aren't sure which type of plastic you have, acrylic is bright when you look directly at the edge, while polycarbonate is dark when you look directly at the edge. <A> The people at my local plastics place would say yes. <S> (Their specific suggestion was 10", 80T.) <S> They also said feed fast, though not so fast as to be unsafe. <A> Our neighborhood Lowe's has a score-and-break rig all set up for this purpose. <A> Just to add in at least a little something. <S> It is possible to have the best of both worlds of Rob's answer and slartibartfast's . <S> At less risk of tear out and flying shards you can use the table saw at an angle in the area of 45 degrees to score the material. <S> How deep you go would obviously depend on the thickness of your stock but you don't need much when you are scoring. <S> You still might need to have a board there to help move the piece <S> allow the blade and something like a push stick would still be recommended. <S> With a good fence this makes it easier to do a straight line (assuming you are terrible scoring other-wise.) <S> This would also reduce the risk of damage due to heat to the material. <A> There are two basic types of plexiglass - extruded/rolled and cast. <S> The cast plexi cuts like a dream. <S> Extruded/rolled plexi (which is what you get from a big box store) can be quite brittle and difficult to cut without shattering the edge. <S> I would recommend making a shallow cut less than half the thickness of the plexi on one side, then flipping it and doing the other, the breaking it along the cut and cleaning up the edge with a knife or file.
| If you bought the Plexiglas at a brick-and-mortar home improvement store, most will cut the material for you for free, or for at most a nominal fee.
|
Best sander for rustic wood I want to build a rustic wood chair. My first rustic wood furniture ever. Doing rustic wood is really complicated for me because the wood is very uneven like this: What sander should I use for something like this? At the moment I do the sanding manually but thats a LOT of time. I'm thinking on buying a Dremel 3000 or Dremel 4000 but not sure that it's the best for this kind of job. I don't have too much experience in sanding and woodworking, I just like this style and love the DIY things. <Q> What sander should I use for something like this? <S> You need tools that can sand contoured objects. <S> There are a number of options, and given the varied nature of your work you'll probably use more than one tool. <S> Here are some choices: flap wheel: Basically a wheel with pieces of heavy duty sandpaper or abrasive cloth inserted around the circumference parallel to the shaft. <S> They come in different sizes, but you'll usually chuck one in a drill press, lathe, or handheld drill. <S> They range in aggressiveness depending on the grit, stiffness of the flaps, and number of flaps. <S> sanding star: Same idea as a flap sander minus the wheel and with the sandpaper turned perpendicular to the shaft. <S> A star is more appropriate for broad, gently contoured surfaces. <S> sanding mop: A sanding mop has about a zillion abrasive fingers. <S> It's constructed like a very thick star that you use from the side, like a flap wheel. <S> What you end up with is a softer version of the flap sander that's far better at conforming to contours. <S> It'll smooth the entire surface and round off sharp edges without being too aggressive. <S> Here's an interesting video demonstrating construction and use of a shop-made mop. <S> sanding brush: <S> This is again similar to a flap wheel with narrow finger-like flaps, but in this case the fingers are backed up with brush bristles that let them push a little harder. <S> Here's one from Grizzly, and <S> here's a video showing one in use. <S> pneumatic drum: Similar to any other drum sander, but <S> the drum is inflated with air. <S> You can vary the pressure to change the amount of give in the drum to make it more or less friendly to contours. <S> Here's one from Lee Valley. <S> buffing wheel: <S> The piece in your photo shows a pretty glossy surface, so you might want to do some buffing after you apply a finish. <S> For the kind of work you describe, I think a sanding mop or sanding brush is a good place to start. <A> I've made furniture like this. <S> I use an angle grinder with flap disks to remove any dead wood and do any shaping required, and then the same grinder with a hook and loop pad attachment and various grades of sanding disks. <S> Down to 120 grit is usually enough. <A> Coming from a traditional stand point you might not even need to use any power tools. <S> Depending on how you are able to remove the bark you might just be able to get away with hand sanding. <S> Pictured in the question is a large bed which could be tedious to do how I am going to suggest <S> but you are just looking to do a chair. <S> That won't be as bad as doing the bed by hand. <S> How you are removing the bark could play a large role If you can get the bark off nicely I would think that this would remove much of the need to clean up the wood by hand. <S> I cannot give recommendation for every species but some wood peel better in the spring (like poplar and some cedars) right after they are cut and there are many others that would fair better being peeled only a few weeks/months after they are felled or removed. <S> My suggestion in this case would be to research debarking your particular type of wood. <S> Given the right circumstances you could be able to remove the bark by stripping it literally by hand. <S> Shifting to a power tool suggestion many have used power washers with great success with the added bonus of not damaging the wood (Although you would likely get very wet). <S> Either way I think cleaning the bark cleanly would make taking the suggestion that follows easily achievable and potentially fulfilling. <S> Clean up by hand <S> In your picture we see debarked wood <S> and that's it <S> (minus the finish of course). <S> You might need to gouge out some knots <S> but I don't see much past light sanding here (if any). <S> This look is supposed to be natural. <S> I am not aware of tools that would do this but sanding by hand, for me at least, seems preferential since you will be using your hands to meet the contours of the wood. <S> I would think power tools could potentially ruin that look <S> but if you follow the suggestions from Caleb <S> I'm sure you would be fine. <S> From my own experience <S> This example is slightly different but when I made a walking stick all I did was strip the bark by hand and remove some chunks away from the knots. <S> The only sanding I did was to round off the knots. <A> I'd guess that this involves a great deal of hand-sanding, if you sand it at all. <S> A detail sander , especially one that can take shaped sanding-block attachments, might speed some of it. <S> Other shaped sanding blocks/sponges/probes might also help. <S> Cabinet scrapers might be another surfacing approach if you know how to use and sharpen those... but basically, if it isn't fairly flat you should expect to have to surface it by hand.
| There are lots of buffing wheels , mops, and other polishing tools available for use with a lathe or bench grinder, and many will work well for contoured work.
|
How to shape a toy boat's hull accurately? I would like to make a series of boat's hulls from a single block of wood. My first consideration is how to semi-accurately model the complex geometry of the stern and bow of a ship. The models only have to be optically accurate and will not be used for wave modeling or scientific analysis, but nevertheless the geometries are pretty complex. Has anyone had similar projects who can help? <Q> You can then start removing stock by any means: band saw, hand planes, sanding, etc. <S> until you've just barely removed the evidence of the holes. <S> Another possibility is to create a series of templates for use with a plunge router -- one template for each depth. <S> This would leave you with a hull with a series of steps, and you'd again have to remove the remaining stock. <S> This is a sort of manual version of CNC routing (which is yet another possibility). <S> If you're going to make several identical copies of the same hull, the fastest way (not counting jig construction) is to build a copying jig/pantograph for your router. <S> You could then create the first model by any means (such as 3D printing, plaster casting, etc.) and make as many copies in wood as you need. <A> All the answers so far assume you're looking for a power tool method (and you probably are), however, since you indicate that you're working in softwood, you may want to consider a couple of carving knives and a few evenings on the front porch. <S> Your first couple might have a few rough spots, but I'm told you can get the hang of it reasonably quickly, especially for the type of quality you're indicating. <A> Personally, I think your best bet is to get CAD files and use a CNC machine. <S> First this would make it a lot easier to replicate the work and it can be done in relatively short order. <S> If you can't/don't want to buy one (understandable, I don't have one nor likely to either) <S> there are different places that you can rent/pay to use them. <S> I think some Maker Spaces have them, there are other communities as well. <S> And some shops will let you bring in your CAD files and put it on their machines. <S> And while this isn't wood working, you can also get/buy/use 3D printers to print the whole ship and some of them can have very fine detail indeed. <A> Is it possible to reconsider whether you must start with a solid block of wood? <S> For much of boatbuilding history, half-hull models were used which were made out of horizontal slices or sections (called 'waterlines'). <S> Each section could then be cut to the appropriate shape, and then 'faired' to a smooth hull surface.
| One method for reproducing complex curves is to mill the surfaces of the block flat and parallel, and then use a drill press to drill a series of holes to measured depths.
|
How can I prevent homemade pipe clamps from twisting? I would like to make some of these parallel clamps that use a pipe for the bar. Source The one advantage that commercial parallel clamps have over these is that the clamp faces will always line up; with the Bellevue Woodshop design it is possible to rotate the moving piece so the faces don't line up. My thought is to glue a small rectangular strip of wood under the pipe along its entire length, and cut a corresponding space (keyhole?) out of the moving part of the clamp. Is this a reasonable solution? Is there another way to prevent the clamp from twisting? Or should I reconsider trying to prevent this twisting? <Q> your idea of adding a rib to keep the heads in line has merit and will do what you are wanting. <S> However, my pipe clamps are similar in that the movable part can rotate all the way around the pipe. <S> On top of that as TX Turner pointed out, sometimes not having them parallel is actually a benefit you can take advantage of. <A> Nah, I wouldn't bother trying to stop the twist. <S> There's a lot of neat things you can do with two jaws that don't have to be parallel. :) <A> If the clamp is sitting on a flat surface, it won't twist when you're tightening it down. <S> (And then if it is tight, it won't twist either.) <S> But to answer your question, you could run 1/4" threaded rod, nutted firmly to the front and the back, and through a free-running hole in the moveable part of the clamp. <S> That won't totally control twist, but I think it's a good start. <S> Neat clamps, btw. <S> Love the maker spirit.
| Generally once you start tightening things down they don't twist and are not a problem. You can turn the face 180 degrees and use it like an expanding clamp, or a jack.
|
Easiest way for a beginner to reduce a pine board's width by 1/2"? I have a small 20" x 24" x 1" pine board that happens to be 1/4" to 1/2" too wide for my needs -- the 20" side needs to be more like 19.7". What's the easiest/cleanest way for a beginner like me to shave this off? Would running a planer across the side work? Or would it work to take it off with a circular saw? <Q> The easiest way is to use a table saw. <S> If you don't have a table saw, then yes, a circular saw would work pretty well. <S> If you want a nice straight edge clamp another straight board or other straightedge to the board so that it guides the saw. <S> To set up, first measure the distance from the edge of the saw's sole plate to the blade and then add the width that you want to remove from the board. <S> Clamp the guide board at that total distance from the edge of the workpiece. <S> For example, if it's 3 1/4" from the edge of the sole plate to the blade and you want to remove 1/2", you'd clamp the guide board 3 3/4" from the edge of the workpiece. <S> Then you 1) put on your safety glasses and 2) run the saw down the board with the sole plate riding along the guide board. <S> If you have a hand plane and a way to clamp the board on edge, that'll work too. <S> Draw a line 1/2" from the edge of the board and just plane to the line. <A> I am assuming you don't have a bandsaw or a table saw. <S> If you have a couple saw horses that you can use to clamp the board onto, then mark your line and using the circular saw to cut the line. <S> if you leave just a little bit extra, then you can use the hand plane to true up the surface and fine tune the final size. <S> if the edge doesn't need to be pretty then just cut off exactly what you need with the saw. <S> Even a hand saw can be used, but it takes a little more practice to make a nice long straight cut. <A> As Caleb mentioned, a table saw is the easiest way to shave off 1/2", since it will also guarantee that the newly-cut edge is parallel to a flat edge registered against the fence. <S> A circular saw with its base/shoe registered against a straight board also works, as Caleb mentioned, but can be a pain to set up because of the offset from the shoe to the blade. <S> (I can't tell you the number of times I spent 10 minutes or more measuring and fine-tuning the setup for a cut, clamped everything in place, and forgot to account for the offset. <S> Sometimes I realized it before I made the cut, but not always.) <S> To eliminate the offset from the equation and save yourself from a lot of wasted time and/or mistakes, consider making a zero-clearance straightedge guide or homemade tracksaw. <S> ( Source ) <S> A homemade or commercially-available parallel edge guide like the Kreg Rip-Cut would also work reasonably well with a circular saw and will require less setup than a straightedge for repeat cuts. <S> ( Source ) <S> Another solution is to use a router. <S> You can either use a straightedge guide similar to one of the circular saw guides, or you can use a (top-bearing) pattern bit or (bottom-bearing) flush trim bit. <S> Flush trim bits are slick because you can construct your project with the excess edge extending past the adjoining face, then use the flush trim bit to trim the edge exactly to the face. <S> Whenever you use a router, remember to take light passes. <S> ( Source ) <A> Another option that I haven't tried is to clamp another floorboard to it, offset by 1/4" and go along the edge with a flush-trim router bit. <S> Update: I have now tried this and it is easy and works like a charm. <S> I bought a cheap small router (the best selling one on Amazon, £40) and a pattern bit. <S> A pattern bit is the same as a flush cut bit but the bearing is near the router instead of away from it.. <S> You can use either in this case. <S> Put the boards together on their edges in the floor, then tilt them so they are offset by the desired amount. <S> Clamp them on the top. <S> Then turn them over and get someone to hold them steady and cut! <S> If you have a workbench or something then use that obviously, but I don't. <S> The bit I got wasn't long enough to do the full depth (20 mm) but the router could easily have handled it if it could. <S> But anyway once you have cut half the depth you can just unclamp the boards and cut again using the already cut part as the pattern. <S> As Kromster says, if you need to cut more than a few mm use a jigsaw to do a rough cut first. <S> I didn't need to in my case because the timber merchants I found cut it to width for me. <A> Before I had a table saw (and I had misplaced my old circular saw in a move), I used a clamped down straightedge and a jigsaw* to cut the edge of a piece of plywood. <S> The edge was pretty rough, and would have needed some work with a sanding block or hand plane if I had been using it for something fancier than a garden cold frame, but it was a $30 tool that was at hand, rather than <S> a (more dangerous) $40 tool I didn't have. <S> Best answer, as others have noted, is a table saw. <S> * <S> The hand tool, not the table mounted tool also known as a scroll saw) <A> Table saw or circular saw. <S> If you're using a circular saw you can either use a straight edge, or use the gauge that is engraved into the base of your saw, provided there is one.
| Just adjust the depth of your blade to barely come out of your piece, move your saw over on the piece of wood till the 1/2" notch is lined up with the edge, clamp down on the base with your thumb and forefinger, and rip away.
|
What can I do if I lose the chuck key for my drill? The string holding my key to the drill broke and I didn't notice at first. I have a couple of drills so I don't have to change the bits often. I am aware that I can buy a new key for my drill but that does not help me at this moment. What can I do to change bits in this drill until such a time that I can replace the key? <Q> Losing a key is definitely inconvenient but you don't need to pack up for the day just yet. <S> This will also work for a drill press <S> What you need Large flat head screwdriver Drill bit that fits ( not the drilling end ) where the chuck key would have been placed. <S> There are other items that will work just as well but the butt of a drill bit fits nicely in the hole so as to not damage the bit or the drill. <S> What to do Place the drill bit in one of the chuck key holes. <S> Use a glove when holding the bit so you don't slice you hand. <S> Using the bit as leverage the screw driver can turn the chuck using the gear. <S> Essentially mimicking the action of the key. <S> The above picture is a still from this video showing the same procedure. <S> Another approach <S> I have used this approach a few times however some people will warn you that it is possible to damage the chuck doing this. <S> Certainly there can be cosmetic damage <S> but I have older drill <S> so this does not bother me. <S> For this you will need a set of locking, tongue and groove or interlocking pliers to grip the chuck and a drill bit just like in the previous solution. <S> As keshlam points out a strap wrench would also work. <S> Use the pliers to grab the chuck. <S> If you are worried about the jaws marking up the drill you can use a spare glove, piece of leather or something similar to wrap around the chuck first. <S> Place the drill bit in one of the chuck key holes. <S> Again, use a glove when holding the bit so you don't slice you hand. <S> The above picture is a still from this video showing the same procedure. <S> Once the have the above all set then it is just a matter of holding the bit still so that use can use the pliers to rotate the chuck. <S> You can also move both simultaneously... doesn't really matter. <S> Just whatever feels comfortable. <S> That's it. <A> Another solution, for variable-speed hand drills: there are rubber rings that can be stretched over the chuck, to provide a safe grip for using the motor to tighten and loosen the chuck. <S> (Many newer drills have such a grip designed in.) <S> It won't generally grab as strongly, but for most purposes it's good enough. <S> To prevent losing the chuck key in the future, tape it firmly to the power cord near the plug. <S> That also guarantees that you remove the key before applying power. <S> Annoying but effective. <A> The perfect tool for this job is a pipe wrench--or, ideally, two of them. <S> A pipe wrench is designed specifically to grip a round object tighter as you apply more tangential force. <S> If you use the two pipe wrenches in the same manner as your router wrenches, squeezing the two handles toward each other with one or both hands, you'll be able to get the chuck at least as tight as you can get it with the key. <S> You can also use a pipe wrench in place of the tongue-and-groove pliers in one of the methods mentioned in Matt's answer. <S> As with the tongue-and-groove pliers method described by Matt, you can wrap the two parts of the chuck with cloth or rubber to prevent marring. <S> When possible, I use pieces of rubber cut from an old bicycle inner tube to prevent marring with my pipe wrench. <S> I am aware that I can buy a new key for my drill <S> but that does not help me at this moment. <S> If you need to finish a project and can't wait 2 or more days to receive a key bought online, your local hardware store may stock chuck keys. <S> You can also post an ad for a chuck key and/or drill on your local Freecycle group, Craigslist, Facebook buy/sell/trade groups, etc., or borrow one from a neighbor or friend. <A> Another way I'd suggest would be to use a polymorph mouldable plastic (like this ) such as Friendly Plastic to create a new tool. <S> Sort of a wrench with plastic teeth that fit the drill exactly. <S> Simply melt the plastic with a heat gun or by placing it in boiling water, then wrap it around the drill. <S> Once it has firmed up a little bit but the whole thing, along with the drill if you can, into your freezer to firm up quicker. <S> If you want better leverage, attach a metal bar or spanner into the plastic while it's still molten. <S> The plastic once hardened should be more than strong enough for the task. <S> I once created a socket for a burred lug nut with an attached 3 foot pipe we usually stick over wretches for leverage and was able to chin up off of it.
| If you only have one pipe wrench, you can make your own hardwood wrench with bolts that fit into the key holes on the smaller part of the chuck.
|
How can I make this cribbage board peg compartment? I'm making a peg cribbage board and want to make a peg compartment with a sliding door. It looks almost like it would require a Dremel tool, but was wondering if anyone has any techniques for accomplishing the task. <Q> I would use a 1" diameter straight cutting bit on a router table to make the main compartment body. <S> You'll have to raise it up into the workpiece to avoid having an open end on the compartment though. <S> For the slot, you can just use a slot cutting bit or set with a bearing guide to follow the edge around. <S> If you think you'll have clearance issues with the bearing and nut, you could always get a top-bearing slot cutter instead. <A> This could be easily cut with a T-Slot Router bit <A> I did a little search and found ISCAR has a set of T bits that can cut slots from 2mm - 5mm. <S> The cutting end can be removed and replaced with different thickness cutters giving you the option to have many different sized slots with one bit. <S> Though after further looking it is really designed for metal cutting, it might work. <S> http://www.iscar.com/Products.aspx/CountryID/1/ProductId/10155 <S> I've seen several others and most seem to be for cutting metal and none seem very cheap. <S> Another option might be to use an angled router bit like those for dovetails. <S> Then you can make a piece like a wedge and slide it in. <A> It looks almost like it would require a Dremel tool <S> The slot that holds the compartment cover looks too narrow to be cut by any router bit that I've seen, and I agree that something like a Dremel tool with a fine saw blade could do the trick. <S> Rout the compartment. <S> Slice the back of the board off with a band saw. <S> Rout out the area around the compartment using a bit depth that matches the slot width. <S> Glue the back of the board back on. <S> I know this might sound like a crazy idea, but if you have a good sharp resaw blade in the bandsaw the glue joint practically disappears. <S> People who aren't looking for it will never notice. <A> They probably used a small slotting bit in a router table, or something similar. <S> Of course there's nothing that requires using that particular compartment design...
| Another way to approach the problem is to remove the back of the board, form the slot, and then replace the back:
|
Drilling a hole parallel to the face in a tight area, right angle drilling? I need to drill a precise hole into a small cavity which happens to the parallel to the face of the piece of wood. To better illustrate this I made a simple diagram to be absolutely clear on what I'm working with here. The space is too small for me to fit any sort of drill into it. I thought about using a dremel with a flexible shaft attached but I need the hole to be as close to perfectly parallel as possible. For those who are familiar with guitars, this is a cavity for the springs of a floating tremolo system. I am having a lot of issues with the spring return which has to do with the hole being drilled out incorrectly. I also need to fill the old holes and probably re-drill through them. What is the best method to do this as well? <Q> I would be tempted to try and use a flexible drill bit. <S> I have a small cheap set that are about 6" long. <S> Can't find a picture of them online. <S> But there are many different kinds out there and many different price points <S> but here's an example of them. <S> Either there was an edit <S> or I missed the part about filling and redrilling the old holes. <S> My two recommendations are either find dowels the correct size and glue them in, and sand them flush, or get some wood filler (preferably stuff made with real wood) and fill them up well, using a nail to push it all the way in. <S> Let it dry and then sand it flush. <S> if the holes are bigger than 1/4" I'd tend to want to go with the dowel approach. <A> In the same vein as bowlturner's answer you could also use a off set drill adapter. <S> Most of them are rather large for the work you are trying to do there are definitely some smaller ones out there. <S> (source: nexcesscdn.net ) Image from PanAmericanTool <S> By no means advocating a particular product <S> but I included this specific one as it had the units dimensions. <S> I was hoping that you could lay this flat but from the looks of your specs its just a little to high. <S> You could easily hold this at a angle with a small board to help give you more precision. <S> If you were lucky you might even be able to stand it on end at 90 degrees with a simple block as a guide. <S> A little googling shows other designs by different names like the "offset pancake type" <S> The flex bits do seem to give you more leeway. <S> You could easily make a 1/2" small drill guide with the drill press to feed the flex bit into for another degree of accuracy. <A> It could be as simple as a grooved guide block that you tape or clamp in place while you slide the flex shaft along the groove to drill the hole. <S> If all else fails, here are a few more possible solutions to consider (though I'm not sure if this would have an impact on the sound quality since you're talking about a musical instrument): <S> Drill all the way through from the other side (from the left, in your picture--assuming that's possible), then plug the hole from that side using wood filler or a dowel. <S> Cut off the part that will have the hole, drill the hole, then glue the part back on. <S> (The cut would be a horizontal line in your diagram.) <S> Similar to #2, cut off the very top part, use a router to carve out the channel (instead of drilling it), then glue the part back on. <A> An out-of-the-box solution that folks often overlook for this sort of problem <S> : I first saw this as the lazy man's technique for making half-dovetail joints. <S> Use a bandsaw to perform a resawing/veneer cut, to remove the face of the board. <S> Use a router or whatever other approach you prefer to cut the channel. <S> Glue the face back onto the board, avoiding getting glue in the channel. <S> Done right, all the grain will line up closely enough that you can't tell where it was rejoined. <S> Variations of this technique can be used to make other parts with hollows that are too long, or too twisty, to drill. <S> Note that some thickness is lost to the bandsaw kerf, so if possible start with a piece slightly thicker than final size and plane it down to an exact match after gluing it together again. <A> I would look at an oscillating "multitool" that can get its blade into the 1/2" deep well space, and use a very small blade . <S> If you can't buy a small enough blade, cut one down with an angle grinder to what you need. <S> It would make a slot rather than a round hole, but you could work with it. <S> Much depends on how hard the wood is, and how much a cut-down blade might flex. <S> (I haven't tried any of this).
| You could easily make a fixture that aligns the end of your Dremel's flex shaft to drill the precise holes. You might experiment with a grinding type of blade used for ceramics.
|
What steps should I follow to properly paint MDF? I am building a laundry basket out of MDF. I need to paint it. How should I proceed once the basket is glued together? (Sanding?, priming?, painting?, other?) <Q> Sanding?, priming?, painting? <S> , other? <S> break sharp corners: <S> Sharp outside corners are easily damaged, and they don't hold paint as well as not-so-sharp corners. <S> You can "break" the corners with a sanding block or just some sandpaper held in your hand. <S> A router with a small-radius roundover bit works really well <S> -- I use a 1/16" radius bit. <A> There should not be much to this. <S> One of the main advantages of MDF is that it is paint ready. <S> There are still some things you need to consider where the drawbacks of MDF come into play. <S> Rob brings these up in his comments so I mention them here at an attempt of completeness. <S> Weight - MDF is very dense which makes it heavy. <S> Depending on the thickness you could end up with one heavy load. <S> (Nothing to do with painting of course but still worth mentioning.) <S> Water absorption - A couple of points in this regard. <S> If you have laundry in there and your MDF is not sealed against that it will make the MDF swell. <S> The is more important at the edges like where you might cut handles or near joinery. <S> Leading from that I would only suggest that you prime if you plan to use a lighter colour and don't want to have to worry about MDF brown ruining the look. <S> If you do prime make sure you don't use a water based primer for reasons mentioned above. <S> If your actual paint of choice is water based based then priming would be a good idea! <S> There are also suggestions about sealing the edges of MDF which should be considered. <S> This might also come into play if your basket is more that just a simple box with handles. <S> Using a mud or spackle is recommended since, like end grain, the edge of MDF will absorb paint irregularly. <S> Since it is likely that moisture will come into contact with this project you should do what you can to protect it. <S> Covering all exposed edges and after it dries just sand it down. <S> Should be a good start to a great laundry basket I think. <A> Good advice here from Matt and Caleb. <S> Just thought I'd tell you how we do it where I work: <S> We use MDF all the time, including moisture-resistant MDF for external boarding. <S> We also sometimes run V-grooves or flutes into the faces of boards for a decorative detail. <S> Before painting, we sand all faces, paying particular attention to cut edges (so the edges of boards or any cut-outs), also making sure to sand a small (~0.5mm) chamfer to any sharp edges. <S> Then we seal the cut edges with standard timber end-grain sealer (but you could probably use PVA glue), then paint with a primer, nib and paint with topcoat. <S> This gives a good smooth finish every time. <S> I would not skip the edge-sealing stage, if you're going to have any of the edges visible, as if skipped this will give a very rough-looking edge and will absorb the paint inconsistently. <S> A good coat of primer might do it, but it would depend strongly on the type of paint/primer you're planning to use. <A> You can prime and/or paint the faces of MDF immediately if you wish. <S> Sanding is not strictly necessary, although it can help primer or paint adhesion, will remove surface contaminants as Graphus mentioned in a comment below, and can smooth out small dents and scratches as WhatEvil mentioned. <S> As Matt and WhatEvil mentioned, it's also a good idea to seal the edges (e.g., with with drywall compound) before priming and painting.
| prime before painting: The smooth faces of MDF can be painted without a lot of preparation, but a coat of primer will seal the surface and give the final coat a smoother finish.
|
What kind of wax will keep a crosscut sled sliding well? I'm making a crosscut sled for my table saw, and I want it to slide freely. I've read various places that waxing the under side of the sled helps a lot. My question is, what kind of wax should I be looking for? I am not looking for an exact brand recommendation; more of a general idea of what aisle of the store I should be looking in. <Q> "Paste wax" is the go-to wax for your purpose and for waxing tool surfaces. <S> I've also been told to avoid car wax since it can contain silicone and apparently it can also contain abrasives (which seemed odd to me, but I suppose any type of polishing involves abrasives...). <A> I have very good luck with a purpose-made product called Bostik TopCote. <S> I first saw this product when I briefly worked for an architectural millwork shop. <S> One spray can goes a long way, and it contains no petroleum oils or silicones. <S> I used it most recently on a donated table saw which I reconditioned, after resurfacing the rusty table. <S> It did a beautiful job. <S> I appreciate the slick surface especially when using a sled. <S> I use it on other tools as well, such as bandsaw, joiner, etc. <S> I would not want to use paste wax because I would be afraid of buildup and transfer to the work. <S> Hope this helps. <A> You've already tried paste wax and had it work for you, but for future readers who might not have any in the shop already and would like to try it for themselves on the cheap I wanted to link to this previous Answer which gives the method to make it at home (simplicity itself). <A> A friend who is a cabinet maker used Bowling Alley wax and his sled slid very well. <S> You can find it on the interwebs, but I think he actually got his from a bowling alley.
| Avoid buying a wax that contains silicone, because the silicone can directly or indirectly get transferred onto your wood and cause problems when you go to apply finish.
|
Why would a plane have a grooved sole? One of the planes I rescued from a yard sale has grooves in its sole, running front to back across the surface that contacts the wood. I'm having trouble imagining what their purpose could be, especially since planes are often used at a skew (turned slightly from the direction they're being pushed). So what have I got here, what's it designed for, and are there any special yips I should know when setting it up? <Q> One supposed advantage of a grooved, or corrugated, sole on a plane is to prevent the plane from "sticking" to the surface of the wood, similar to the way two panes of glass (or any two smooth surfaces) will stick together if there's no air between them. <S> It was originally intended to reduce friction by reducing the contact surface without compromising the plane's ability to produce a flat surface, though as aaron pointed out, in reality that isn't the case. <S> You just need to wax the sole to reduce friction. <S> You cat set it up the same as you would a non-corrugated plane. <S> As LeeG noted, a practical benefit is that there's less material to remove if you need to flatten the sole. <A> Terminology note: the base of a plane is referred to as the sole. <S> That's the theory at least. <S> The fact that corrugated soles did not continue to be made probably indicates most strongly that they didn't offer any significant advantage. <S> In the modern era, more than one woodworking guru has commented that they cannot notice any difference in use, especially if the flat-soled plane is kept properly lubricated with wax or tallow. <S> Chris Schwartz for example notes: "I have planes with both smooth soles and corrugated ones, and if there is a difference in effort required to wield them, I cannot discern it." <S> (Read full piece here for further details as there are other advantages.) <S> especially since planes are often used at a skew (turned slightly from the direction they're being pushed). <S> Keen observation. <S> I have wondered the same thing myself, and have been told that it doesn't make any difference. <S> On wood that is already fairly smooth I can buy this but on wood that is still quite textured I can't imagine it <S> wouldn't make at least some difference as there are multiple arisses moving across the texture versus just the one on the leading edge of a regular plane. <A> In addition to reducing friction, a corrugated sole is easier to flatten. <S> You are removing significantly less material if the sole is not dead flat. <A> In the UK we're taught that grooved planes were used on particularly resinous timbers.
| Grooved or corrugated soles were intended to reduce friction by reducing the surface area of the metal plane in contact with the workpiece.
|
What should I look for when aquiring a plane second hand? I was in a pawn shop recently and I saw a Stanley no. 4 plane. I do not have one of those and I probably could have talked him down to 15$. That being said I am not sure how to know if a hand plane is still in good function. Would hate to buy it to only find out later if I looked at _____ that I would have known to stay away. I saw some pitting on the sole but there was no rust. When looking at hand planes what can I do to assess the tool to see if it would have a place in my collection? <Q> Ideally you want a plane with the following: <S> Critical: <S> no cracks or heavy wear around the mouth <S> Highly preferable: <S> Flat sole <S> little or no rust <S> no cracks, pitting, or chipping in general Rust and the sole can be remedied but would be nicer not to have to deal with. <S> If it's missing parts, you can easily find a replacement blade and can probably find the other parts, but that will increase your cost, of course, and you won't be able to use it until you do find replacement parts. <S> If the plane is badly damaged, you could use parts from the plane to fix another plan or you could make an infill plane. <S> If you were looking at a wooden or transitional plane you could just replace the worn wood. <A> Unless there's enough rust to weld parts together or leave a surface pitted and uneven beyond repair, I've never had it be the reason for walking away from a hand plane. <S> The first thing I check is the quality of the plane iron. <S> Flip the lever on the cap and pull off the blade and chip breaker. <S> Learn to do this quickly so that you can get it apart faster than the pawn shop owner can protest. <S> Watch out for junk blades or backs <S> so messed up they aren't worth trying to flatten. <S> With the blade assembly off, check the condition of the the frog. <S> Verify both bolts connecting the frog to the body are present and not rusted over. <S> Play with the adjusters to make sure they move properly. <S> Bring a ruler and check the sole for flatness. <S> You can also use the glass top of a display case to check for rock. <S> Flattening a sole isn't hard, but why do it if you don't have to? <S> Lastly, look for signs of wear on the plane. <S> This is a tool that has survived a long time and seen lots of use. <S> If it looks pristine, be wary. <S> It's possible there's something wrong and it never got used. <S> (I have a Harbor Freight spokeshave just like this). <A> Every thing that has been said is bang-on. <S> Take a look at the frog, generally frogs which have more surface area in contact with the blade are higher quality. <S> Pre-war Stanley planes are a good bet. <A> Your question's answer depends on whether you are looking for a user plane, i.e. something you intend to use, or a collectible plane that you want to show off or resell for a higher price. <S> The latter is very complex, but the former is straightforward. <S> The easiest answer is to purchase a premium, new plane and call it a day. <S> A number 4, a smoother, requires a bit more work than other planes. <S> The sole should be as flat as possible to ensure very thin shavings. <S> Don't expect it to be flat when you buy one. <S> It can take anywhere from an hour or more to flatten the sole using cheap and easily obtained materials. <S> There are tons of online resources that explain the process. <S> Under no circumstances should you buy one that has any size cracks, large chips or deep pitting. <S> If you see any, kindly refuse. <S> Such defects can compromise its function or its structural integrity. <S> I would only buy such planes with the intent of salvaging <S> it's parts that are in good condition. <S> The price of the plane depends on a variety of factors, including type, model and overall condition. <S> It is hard to say without looking at it. <S> There are some #4 that are very rare, fetching hundreds of dollars, but it requires a good eye and experience. <S> $15 is a reasonable price for a number 4, even for a less desirable newer post war type.
| I would also look at the blade, generally one with a bit of life left has material left to grind, not too much pitting and is relatively thick. I personally would consider cracks or heavy wear around the mouth a deal-breaker if you want to use the #4 plane as-is, as a #4 plane. it should not be missing any parts--e.g., blade, chipbreaker, cap iron, adjustors, body (of course) none of the screws or corresponding holes should be stripped or cross-threaded Make sure the iron will bed solidly. If you purchase an old plane, you will have to expect to put some work into it such as derusting and cleaning. If the totes are well worn, you may have found a keeper.
|
What can cause a table saw to make this rattling/clacking noise? I've just put my used Powermatic 64 Artisan's Saw together. When the belt is attached to the motor, it makes a sound that seems like something is unbalanced. When the motor spins freely without the belt attached, the sound goes away. I have uploaded a video to youtube demonstrating both of these sounds: https://youtu.be/55UqASDmyec Is the sound that the saw makes under load of the belt (note: there is no blade in the saw yet) normal, or is there something I need to look into? If so, what? <Q> It shouldn't be making that sound. <S> The first unloaded run is how the saw should sound, even when it's loaded. <S> Have you inspected the belt for flaws? <S> The frequency of the "rattle" seems a little high for a single nick, but if there are a few in a row, I could see that being the problem. <S> My other thought is that you've got a bad bearing somewhere. <S> My first guess would be the saw arbor, since it's not rotating when the belt is off. <S> Rotate it by hand and feel for roughness or excessive play. <S> Unloaded, the rolling elements may trace a different path on the bearing races. <S> When the cantilever load of the belt is applied, it may slightly change how the rolling elements circle the race and come into contact with a spalled portion of the race. <A> I replaced the belt, which was worn and nicked, with a new V-drive belt from Grizzly. <S> That helped a lot, but there was still a clacking sound coming from the motor. <S> I found that I had not installed the pulley wheel correctly. <S> Specifically, the key was too far forward which prevented the set screw from clamping down on it. <S> I have posted an "after" video on youtube to demonstrate the way a table saw should sound! <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2UUdkWz0PU <A> Is the sound that the saw makes under load of the belt... <S> normal <S> No. <S> You should figure out what's causing the noise. <S> If so, what? <S> One way to identify the problem is to use an old mechanic's trick . <S> With the machine running, place the tip of a metal rod or very long screwdriver against the part that you suspect of making the noise, and place your ear against the other end. <S> Sound travels along the screwdriver shaft, so by placing the tip of the screwdriver against different parts of the machine you can determine where the sound is coming from. <S> Again, it should be a very long screwdriver because you don't want your head anywhere near the moving parts. <A> My table saw makes the same sound. <S> Also, the set screw on the upper pully is constantly loosening, to the point I finally tapped the upper pully shaft about an eighth inch . . . <S> I realize NOW the number one reason for this rattling noise and the vibration has got to be the fact that the two pullys are not perfectly aligned AND my v-grooved belt is anywhere from .25 to .5 too long. <S> My saw is an antique mounted on a homemade iron-frame - the motor sits underneath on a .75 wood 'shelf'. <S> I realize - when I loosen and move the motor back & tighten it down in order to get the belt tighter, I am also causing slight misalignment between the lower motor pully & the upper pully! <S> If those two pullies are not lined up, and I think exactly lined up, the belt is going to rattle and vibrate something awful and ultimately damage the saw. <A> Guess what!.... <S> After tinkering with the top pulley - I realized it was wore out. <S> Went down to Tractor Supply and found the identical 2.5 pulley/ .5. <S> bore - about 10 bux. <S> My table saw is working like brand new. <S> The old pulley bore was so worn out it had a about a 16th gap on the shaft. <S> This is why irattled & vibrated and the pulley often kept working off the shaft during operation. <S> duh. <S> Sometimes the easiest fixes really are the best ...
| If it's not the arbor bearings, it may actually be a motor bearing.
|
What is the normal end-of-life for a bandsaw blade? I suppose there are two alternatives for the death of a bandsaw blade: The blade breaks. The teeth get noticeably dull and the blade is discarded. I have never experienced scenario #2 but I've broken a few blades on my bandsaw. Is this the normal way for them to go? Does breaking a bandsaw blade indicate something such as too much/too little tension? <Q> Does breaking a bandsaw blade indicate something such as too much/too little tension? <S> It can <S> but it could simply be from material fatigue or a poor weld. <S> So anyway, blades break or go dull, <S> what then ? <S> This is the interesting question for me since in the past worn bandsaw blades <S> were routinely re-sharpened but like a lot of similar changes over time this is seen much less frequently today. <S> Many woodworkers aren't even aware resharpening is a possibility. <S> And even breaks are repairable (and easily, the work takes just minutes in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing). <S> Part of the reason for this type of thing is the lower cost of 'consumables' which makes repair "not economically viable" as they say in the industry. <S> But doing maintenance or repair yourself sidesteps that reality. <S> However, since a lot of woodworkers don't have welding equipment or the experience to re-weld a critical area like this <S> you are still left with a broken blade, but that doesn't mean it has reached the end of its life and should go straight for recycling. <S> A common use for broken bandsaw blades in the past was as stock for bowsaw blades and this is still perfectly viable. <S> And making the bowsaw frame is a great woodshop project in itself. <S> That is just the tip of the recycling iceberg. <S> Other potential uses include: shim material scroll saw <S> blades <S> scraper blades <S> scratch stock cutters <S> Just one broken blade could provide nearly a lifetime's worth of any of the above. <A> Blades fatigue over time because of the bending around the tires. <S> They will eventually break due to this. <S> Always inspect blades for stress cracks which usually appear in the gullets, before welding. <S> If a blade is found to have stress cracks, then its time for a new one. <S> I sold saw blades for a living to manufacturers, so I know a little. <S> In the Real World, we seldom see any absolutes. <S> RE repairing (welding) blades; I've seen quite a few (industrial-size) bandsaws which had welders built right in; break a blade, count your fingers, trim the ends and weld them without removing the blade. <S> There are always compromises to be made to have a general, all-around BS blade. <S> Seldom is a wood cutting blade useable on metal, although metal-cutting blades <S> can cut wood without too many problems. <S> But unless you're in a production environment (cutting the same thing, mechanically fed, changed before too dull or else they overheat & break) you have to get the finest TPI, pitch, and set you can stand to use on the biggest thing you'll cut (sort of prepare-for-the-worst situation). <A> Good question. <S> Every bandsaw blade I've gotten rid of has also been because it broke. <S> While this can be an indication that there is incorrect tension on the blade, it also just happens from use. <S> If it snaps pretty early, likely the tension was wrong or you did something dumb. <S> (I broke one because I turned a piece to sharply). <S> Wider blades are more likely to get dull before snapping, and some of them can be respharpened, though for most band saws it is likely cheaper to buy a new one. <S> Some high quality blades can certainly be worth the sharpening. <A> Yes, the teeth become dull. <S> In my youth, there were shops that would take your blades and resharpen bandsaw blades and table saw blades for a small fee. <S> Too much tension, or too much lateral movement can cause problems in my experience. <S> Back in the day, sometimes the new blade would break at the weld, but I have not see this in a long while. <S> (If you cut wood then metal and then wood again with the same blade, it is easy to 'feel' the difference due to the duller blade.) <S> Also see <S> http://www.bandsawblade.com/chart.htm Dulling may be symptom of other tuning issues. <S> http://vermontamerican.com/article/ultimate-guide-band-saw-blades-break-troubleshooting/ <A> My rule of thumb (still got both of mine, knock on wood) <S> is... <S> when the blade gets rewelded about the fourth time, it's probably not going to get welded again; by that time, the back has grown too brittle and it's probably lost some teeth. <S> Until that point, reweld & resharpen. <S> I've never had a blade breakage that I could trace back to overtensioning, although I'm always just a bit tender with tensioning anyway - my first bandsaw had a honeycombed cast-aluminum body, and "proper" tension was spooky with it - it felt like the saw's body might give way at any time. <S> That was an illusion, of course, but it taught me not to overtension. <S> Lots of bandsaw blades (TimberWolf springs to mind) want very little tension - only enough to prevent the blade from fluttering.
| If used absolutely correctly, the blade should wear out (dull) and not break.
|
What's the best way to remove varnish from recycled wood flooring? I've got a bunch of recycled hardwood flooring that I plan to use for shop projects and possibly nicer furniture. How should I remove the varnish? Would it be preferable to use the thickness planer or rip it with the table saw? Or is it worth waiting to get a jointer? I don't want to dull my planer blades when a carbide-toothed saw blade would hold up better, or vice versa. <Q> You can either mechanically remove the varnish or chemically strip it. <S> Examples of mechanical methods: <S> planer jointer table saw belt sander (or other aggressive sander) <S> hand plane? <S> If I was using one of the above methods I'd probably opt for the belt sander. <S> If using a planer or jointer, some people prefer to swap in a dull set of knives. <S> Similarly, you could swap in a cheaper blade if you use the table saw and don't want to accelerate the wear on a nice blade. <A> In smaller batches I recommend hand scraping for finish removal on large, flat expanses as you're faced with here. <S> It's not as onerous as it sounds because of how efficient card scrapers are, and at least you're not having to deal with the boards in situ on the floor. <S> (Backbreaking work!) <S> Chemical stripping is obviously one option, and while the 'green' products (which are slower but can still work well) are much less odoriferous the cost does rise and rise the more you have to do. <S> For furniture-scale projects I'm a big fan of strippers, but they're a little hard to justify for very large amounts of stuff if you're buying your stripper retail. <S> Heat or flame stripping is an option. <S> Using a heat gun or blowtorch, with paint scrapers in a scraping motion or a stout putty knife in a pushing motion to scrape off the softened finish. <S> But ideally you'd want to work outside, especially if using a torch. <S> There's a really good alternative to any of the above that can sometimes work to your advantage: use the back of the board which doesn't have any finish on it. <A> I've used a heat gun and a steel brush (lightly applied) to get varnish of old furniture in the past. <A> I would check really carefully to make sure there isn't any metal in the boards.
| You can also often chemically strip old varnish by using an appropriate solvent, as discussed in How to find out what kind of finish is on a piece of furniture , or by using a chemical stripper as discussed in an article on Bob Vila's website . Depending how much you have might be worth it to get a cheap hand planer to remove the finish before running it through your planner.
|
How should I orient a spline along a long edge join? I glued up a 4' long dresser top last night, and ended up using a 1/4" spline to line up the two 12" wide sub-panels into one 24" wide one. I was using pine quarter-sawn boards, and for the spline I just ripped a 1/4" wide strip from the end of one of the panels, since I had made them a bit oversized. So the spline had the same grain direction as the panels, except the growth rings are rotated 90°. Unfortunately I didn't really think about spline grain direction while I was gluing it up. Am I going to run into problems with my 3/4" wide spline expanding enough to crack the center joint on my table? In the future, is it critical that I manufacture a long spline for an edge join with grain perpendicular, like in the image below? It seems like a huge hassle, since I'd have to have a super wide board or use dozens of little spline chunks. ( Image Source ) <Q> The spline will expand at the same rate as the board it is in, if the grain is running parallel to the grain in the board, so there shouldn't be a problem. <S> The reason splines are better when the grain is perpendicular to the join is for strength - wood will split along the grain much easier than it will break across it. <S> The edge grain to edge grain glue bond will be plenty strong alone. <S> I will use splines, biscuits, dominos, or dowels on this type of glue up just for alignment purposes. <A> You shouldn't have any issues. <S> To begin you used the same wood, which they should move pretty close to the same. <S> Second the splines are very small compared to the pieces that they are connecting. <S> The splines should not be able to do much movement. <S> On top of that, I think leaving the spline slightly smaller than the sum of the two grooves is standard practice, it is the faces of the spline providing most of the added strength. <A> Am I going to run into problems with my 3/4" wide spline expanding enough to crack the center joint on my table? <S> Same wood, grain aligned the same way? <S> I think you can virtually guarantee there won't be any problem. <S> In the future, is it critical that I manufacture a long spline for an edge join with grain perpendicular, like in the image below? <S> No, not for that purpose. <S> In a splined long-grain joint like this the spline is not for strength, it is actually almost entirely an alignment aid. <S> Where splines are used for strength grain direction is important (if using solid wood*) as in a splined mitre , but not otherwise. <S> * <S> Another option to consider for your spline material is plywood. <S> Very stiff and very stable.
| Normally, in a panel glue up like you describe, the spline is only used for alignment, not strength.
|
What's the difference between a sheet sander and random orbit sander? I'm looking for a sander and as I browse through the various offerings I can see that most manufactures offer both a sheet sander and a random orbit sander. Aside from the shape of the sanding surface, are there any functional differences between the two? What scenarios does each type excel at? <Q> In addition to Rob's answer, the motion of both sanders is a bit different. <S> Sheet sanders tend to move back and forth in a straight line, with small variation side to side. <S> A random orbit sander has an eccentric cam mechanism that makes the sanding disc move in a circular but not round fashion. <S> I'd best liken it to the old spir-o-graph toy- <S> it's 'orbiting' around the central point, <S> but it's not a simple circle. <S> You get less noticeable scratches this way. <S> An RO sander is great for wide open spaces, where if you use a successively finer grit, you end up with a nice smooth surface. <S> But it doesn't get into inside corners very well. <S> My RO sander also has holes in the pad, which facilitates sanding dust removal with a shop vac. <S> (I'm not sure if modern sheet sanders have a dust collection port, but none of mine do.) <A> Sheet sanders usually take 1/4 or 1/2 sheet of sandpaper held in place with 2 clamps, though some can also take hook-and-loop paper. <S> As Graphus pointed out, most models today have dust collection. <S> Many models come with a hole punch in order to perforate standard sheets of sandpaper with the appropriate pattern of dust collection holes, but for some you must buy the hole punch separately. <S> Sheet sanders themselves are relatively inexpensive and the paper is also very inexpensive on models which use normal sandpaper, compared to sanders that use hook-and-loop sanding media. <S> Random orbit sanders typically use round sanding disks held in place with hook-and-loop (velcro), and have holes in the both the sanding media and the sander's pad for dust collection. <S> A random orbit sander costs the same or more than a sheet sander with more or less the same specs, and the sanding discs cost more than normal sandpaper. <S> You have to be somewhat careful when buying media, because there are 2 "standard" but basically incompatible hole patterns, 5-hole and 8-hole. <S> Although 5-hole sanders are not as commonly sold today, you can still find 5-hole sanding discs. <S> Festool has its own proprietary hole patterns, called Jetstream and Multi-Jetstream. <S> Mirka has its own line of Abranet sanding mesh which, as mesh with many small holes already, doesn't require any particular hole pattern and can attach to any hook-and-loop sander. <S> Dust collection not only reduces the amount of dust in the air and all over the place, but it also allows the sandpaper to work more efficiently by preventing a layer of wood dust from building up between the sanding media and the workpiece. <S> The resulting airflow across the sanding media's surface also helps against excessive heat buildup, which will melt and destroy the plastic hooks (for the hook-and-loop fastening) on the bottom of the sander's pad. <S> As TXTurner and LeeG pointed out, the two types of sanders also produce different scratch patterns. <S> Sheet sanders can reach into corners which a random orbit sander cannot do with its circular pad. <S> Sheet sanders use a linear or orbital (circular) motion, and some can be switched between the two. <S> Random orbit sanders use an eccentric circular motion which is intended to create a less visible scratch pattern, but some higher-end models can also be switched into a gear-driven orbital mode for more aggressive sanding. <A> Random orbit sanders rotate and oscillate to give scratch pattern that is harder for the eye to discern. <S> Sheet sanders typically just have some random oscillation. <S> RO sanders can be more aggressive. <S> Both sanders can support dust collection (see Festool), but typically sheet sanders do not have provisions for dust collection, and RO sanders almost always do. <S> The larger sheet sander (1/2 sheet) are great for finishing a large, flat surface. <S> Sheet sanders also work well for sanding into corners, something you cannot do with a round RO sander.
| As to the difference in application.. sheet sanders excel at getting into corners and edges, but can cause grooves because the sheet only moves in one direction.
|
Can it be predicted when a board will bind? I was recently ripping about an inch off of a 6/4 thick, 5" wide board, and had the kerf close up on the riving knife. Thankfully the knife saved me from kickback, but I'd still like to avoid this situation in the future. Is there a way to tell how a board will move when ripped by looking at the grain, or is it pretty much random? <Q> Internal stresses in the board that are released when cut cannot be entirely predicted, no. <S> A square, flat, straight board might rip or resaw into a problem piece. <S> That being said, a cupped, bowed, or twisted board will often yield a smaller board with similar problems, even after going through the process of squaring / truing up. <A> If you get a particularly strong or stubborn piece, you can knock some pre-cut timber wedges into the saw groove on the outfeed side in order to prevent excessive pinching, hammering/pushing them in as you go along. <A> As the others said, no true prediction. <S> It has to do with internal stresses and cutting the board releases them. <S> It might have to do with where the wood came from in the tree (a leaning tree or branch is more likely to have stress wood when cut into lumber) <S> Some of it can be how the wood was dried. <S> Case hardening etc. <S> There is a good chance that if it's the drying process, or the wood location, a lot of the wood from the same batch will likely have similar problems. <A> This not so much an answer, but to provoke some discussion. <S> When I rip clear, straight-grained wood, I do not expect any problems. <S> When I rip wood with "interesting" grain, I expect to have difficulty half of the time - the wood will either bind into the blade or splay apart. <S> The definition of "interesting" is up for grabs. <S> Perhaps crotch wood or wood near a knot, or perhaps wood near the pith.
| I've never noticed any predictable pattern when ripping timbers.
|
Is an oscillating multi-tool a good option for detailed sanding? I am just wondering if these tools would be we suited for small spaces and sanding in corners. <Q> I've got a corded and a cordless oscillating multi tool, and they're amazing for corners, since the sanding pads for them are triangular with 60° corners. <S> There are a few drawbacks that will keep you from using it as your default go-to sander though: <S> They have a relatively small surface area. <S> They usually oscillate in a 3° arc, which will be more likely to leave noticeable cross grain scratches than a random orbital sander. <S> They don't have holes for dust collection, but this can be remedied since you can buy a dust collection adapter for many of them. <A> It's ok for getting into really tight spaces where a normal mouse sander won't fit, but as Doresoom mentioned, it produces an arc-shaped scratch pattern. <S> Also because of the tool's shape and the tiny surface area of the sanding pad, it can be difficult to keep it oriented flat against a surface. <S> Be sure to run the tool at a lower speed (and use a dust collection adapter if possible), otherwise the hook-and-loop sanding pad's hooks will melt. <A> Not to suggest that an oscillating multi tool is not good for this type of sanding but small spaces and sanding in corners can mean different things. <S> Depending on how tight your corner is you might have more luck with something like this. <S> Image from LeeValley <S> Sure there are commercial products which work well. <S> I find myself wrapping sanding paper around scrap wood all the time albeit mostly for right angles. <A> The tool manufacturers seem to think so, as every one I've owned has came with a sanding pad mounting system. <S> I've used mine to get into the inside back corners of furniture that I'm stripping / refinishing, it did tolerably well.
| Just to have another suggestion for these types of scenarios there are such things as contour sanding blocks/grips that are designed to hold paper to a shape.
|
What would be considered the strongest finish? I am looking for the strongest finish for a project with the following specifications. I prioritize scratch and wear resistance, but also want sun and water resistance along with adjustments to temperature changes. It is okay if the color changes a little, but it can't be too drastic. I will not be refinishing in the future. Sorry for so much changes, I think I am discovering more of what I am looking for as I am learning. <Q> Depends on the conditions. <S> Spar varnish is typically not as hard as poly, so it isn't as resistant to mechanical wear. <S> However that also means it handles expanding/contracting wood better, and thus is a better choice for wood exposed to weather. <S> Also, spar varnish often contains ingredients to block ultraviolet light, which can help wood retain its color when exposed to sunlight; again that's more important for outdoor wood. <S> Spar varnish will usually add some yellow tones to the wood. <S> Oil-based poly will do that too. <S> Water-based poly typically dries transparent. <S> You can certainly use spar varnish indoors, if you like the look. <S> I used it most recently on some window trim, which will get some direct sun and occasional raindrop. <S> For most purposes it's a perfectly reasonable choice... <S> but poly may be a bit cheaper, may go on easier <S> , may clean up easier (if water based) and may change the color less (if water based); that last may or may not be an advantage. <S> Pick your trade-offs. <A> Not spar varnish then. <S> Spar varnishes are actually relatively soft, and thus are prone to marring from abrasion that a typical indoor polyurethane would shrug off. <S> They're also significantly more yellow than regular varnish in case you were unaware. <S> You want to look into marine epoxy coatings. <S> Extremely strong in almost every way. <S> But be warned, they are not cheap. <A> You are asking for the holy grail. <S> Outdoor clears all require regular refinishing. <S> UV tends to eat them. <S> Water-based products are less hard but with multiple coats would last longer. <S> Some of which could go over a water based timber coating, especially if sprayed lightly multiple times. <S> Could craze but best bet. <S> 2-pack polyurethane would be the most UV and scratch resistant. <S> Use paint not clear.
| I want the most durable overall. The most abrasive resistant products would be Concrete or slate sealers.
|
What alternatives are there for pocket screws? So I borrowed a Kreg jig from a friend and was using some scrap 2x4's to work on the Community Project: Lets build a workbench! . Unfortunately I came to an impasse. I went to 3 local hardware stores on none of them carried "pocket screws" when I asked for them by that name. Sure I can order the genuine article from the Kreg website but I am more interested in what other hardware alternatives are there to pocket screws? <Q> Not a direct answer to your question but thought I'd add that if you can find a screw of suitable overall form <S> but it's unfortunately not self-tapping <S> you can modify them so that they are. <S> Any screw can be modified to make it self-tapping, and the process is surprisingly easy. <S> All that's required is to create clearance and effectively a cutting edge, or more than one, and the existing threading takes care of the rest (just as it does on manufactured self-tapping screws). <S> This sounds like a lot of work <S> but it can be a very quick operation, literally a few seconds per screw at fastest. <S> So I'll concentrate on the fast-and-dirty method instead of those that create a groove similar to that seen on many commercial types. <S> Grip your screw in gloved fingers or pliers <S> (pad jaws to prevent crushing the threads) and hold it against a grinder or belt sander to create one flat face on it, approximately 1/3 of the way up the threads. <S> Ideally it should retain its original point, looking something like this when you're done: Bingo, your screw has just become self-tapping. <A> The important parts are to have self-tapping screws (unless you want to do a little predrilling before using the screws, not recommended) and having a flat surface on the bottom of the head. <S> Depending on what you expect it to need to bear, most screws would handle this fairly well. <S> However, the Kreg pocket hole screws are HARD. <S> Your average deck screw is very soft in comparison. <S> I accidentally hit one with my biscuit joiner and totaled the blade. <S> It also made a terrible racket and barely touched the screw. <S> So that would be the biggest difference between them and some other screw you would likely use that looks similar. <A> From what I can see of the pocket screws and their intended purpose you can find similar properties in screws that have pan or truss like heads. <S> Basically a wide head with a flat bottom. <S> I ended getting screws advertised as Particle Board screws. <S> They had a washer head and looked similar to this. <S> The ones I purchased were threaded all the way unlike typical pocket screws. <S> It is also important to use self tapping / type-17 screws. <S> Like Doresoom points out: <S> It's a huge pain to drill a pilot hole at the same angle <S> I would still be curious to know of any other ideas people have. <S> I suppose you could also just purchase washers which you could partner with other screws but that would be a costly venture. <A> I've made several rough projects where, just for practice, I used pocket screws, including a couple sawhorses, a little outside bench for taking off shoes, and my own workbench. <S> Each time, I actually just used regular drywall screws instead of the Kreg screws, for convenience and (a very little bit of) money saving -- not because they're at all the right screws. <S> One thing I really had to do with the drywall screws that I wouldn't have had to do with the right screws was to pull the joint very tightly together before screwing. <S> This is because the pressure on the screw to start tapping wants to push the joint apart -- even with a real Kreg screw. <S> But then, the threads of a drywall screw run all the way to the head, so <S> the threads near the head grab the first board, and don't let it pull snug against the second board. <S> This is why Kreg screws have the partially unthreaded shank; that unthreaded part slips right through the first board, so the joint pulls snug. <S> In summary, for a rough project like your workbench, you can use any screw that fits if you're willing to clamp the joint very tightly before screwing. <S> And while the self-tapping feature and wide washer on Kreg screws are very nice features, the one feature I would really look for if I couldn't find Kreg screws is that partially unthreaded shank. <A> I know this is an old question, but I recently had to solve this problem myself, so maybe I can help someone who finds this later. <S> I used the SPAX screws, 1-1/4" Long for 3/4" stock. <S> They are REAR PANEL screws, and they have a 3/8" head. <S> $3 for a box of 30, and it took me about 15 mins to modify them all. <S> Not great time-wise, but batching them out helps, and it works in a pinch. <S> I modified them in two stages: <S> First took them to the bench grinder and ground a flat in the first couple threads as mentioned here: <S> * <S> Then I chucked them in my mini lathe (but probably would have been faster chucking them in a drill), and ran them against a rotary tool with a mounted grinding wheel of larger diameter then the screw head (3/4" in my case) and ground the first few threads off to make the clearance on the shaft.
| You can also get screws with washer heads.
|
Do wood cuts matter for wands? I am having a wand made, and I wondered if wood cuts mattered. I heard rift sawn wood is the best for strength in boards, but they only receive pressure from the surface. A wand would only receive pressure on the long part and not the ends, but it would receive pressure from all around. Is rift sawn still the strongest cut? Does it matter? Money is not an issue. I care only about strength and durability over time. <Q> Warning: <S> Depending who you mean by rift-sawn it can also mean quarter-sawn. <S> In this question <S> it was understood that modern quarter-sawn wood is what you are describing. <S> I am going to refer to quarter-sawn from here. <S> Unless your wood stock is from a twig I would guess that the wood you end up with will have the grain of Quarter-Sawn anyway because of its size. <S> This is of course assuming the length of the wand is perpendicular to the grain.... which you would want (I refer you to Graphus' answer for a visual representation of my meaning). <S> This type of wood is favoured by furniture makers as it is less likely to warp. <S> For a wood to be Quarter-Sawn it has to average 60 degree to 90 degree in grain direction. <S> With a wood diameter that small you should get that (Again I refer you to Graphus' answer for a visual representation). <S> We have not discussed wood selection yet and that is harder to answer since I do not know your location but oak, hickory, elm and white ash would be good choices to consider. <S> They are primary choices for tool handles <S> and I think would fit well here. <S> Another question here covers some simple methods in making wands if you were so inclined. <S> Part of me feels you are having it made for you but good information none the less. <S> Wood features to avoid The two most important things I would avoid when choosing wood, especially for this project, is avoid the pith and, in general, knotting wood. <S> Using either is asking for a premature break. <S> Like if the knot was to cross the entire diameter of the wand. <A> As long as the grain goes in the same direction as the long dimension of the wand you are good. <S> If the grain goes across the length of the wand it will be much weaker and easily break. <A> I am having a wand made, and I wondered if wood cuts mattered. <S> Basically no <S> it shouldn't. <S> Assuming I am imagining the form of the wand correctly, the grain will run across the cross-section in nearly exactly the same way irrespective of the cut of the original piece of wood: Grain orientation in the other direction on the other hand might contribute greatly to whether you end up with a stronger or weaker piece. <S> Note <S> this is only <S> relatively weak, very strong woods like oak and hickory can be very resilient even if the grain is less than ideal (as is the case on many modern axe and hammer handles for example). <S> I heard rift sawn wood is the best for strength in boards, but they only receive pressure from the surface. <S> Other things being equal quarter-sawn should be the strongest, and most stable (in addition to having the visual characteristics that it is often valued for). <S> As Matt's answer already covers, some rift-sawn planks will effectively be quarter-sawn wood, but not all. <S> So strength (and stability) of rift-sawn wood can be highly variable. <A> To answer your title question Does the cut of wood matter? <S> , unless the wand is going to be used by the 2- to 4-year-old set to beat on everything in sight, I don't think that the strength or cut of wood is going to matter in the least so long as you go beyond small twig size in diameter. <S> If this is being made as a keepsake for someone it will, most likely, sit on a shelf and be played with on occasion. <S> My daughter has several manufactured (plastic/resin) <S> "Harry Potter" wands which sit in their closed boxes, and she'll get them out once or twice a year to fiddle with them for a few minutes. <S> Granted, she's 18 now, so not quite as fanatical as when she was 12, but <S> even when she was younger, the handling was gentle, as she viewed them more as a collector's item/keepsake than an actual toy. <S> Even if it's being made for LARP use, that would likely involve older people (beyond the 2- to 4-year-old set) who would likely take care in the use of the wand, and wouldn't throw it, beat on people, rocks, or trees, with it, etc. <S> I'm posting as an answer to this question in particular, but I feel it applies to all of your <S> I'm having a wand made questions.
| If the wand is straight (somewhat like a drumstick or a conductor's baton) then straight grain that runs the full length will give the strongest result, but if there is what is called grain run-out (second image below) it will be more prone to failure if subjected to sideways forces:
|
How can I create a wooden torus/doughnut? I was thinking about make a replica Wii wheel for my kids out of wood. That would be about 6" in diameter. It seems a tall order to me as I do not know how to make a concoction like that with any amount of accuracy. Let alone how to get the wood together to even start something like that. Wooden ring http://www.jewelleryshed.co.uk/ekmps/shops/jewelleryshed/images/5-x-brown-41mm-undrilled-donut-burly-wood-beads-cj019--3811-p.jpg Aiming to have something similar to the picture but ease of creating will be taken over precision. All I can picture is a combination of lamination and a router using a template but I don't know for sure. How can I make a wooden wheel, doughnut or torus (I was trying to find a proper term to sound smart!). <Q> I've done something similar, at about a 3" diameter. <S> Since I had to produce a fair number of them I made two jigs for the task: one to guide a router and pattern bit around the inner surface <S> (after i'd drilled away most of the waste) and hold the block steady while I switched to a roundover bit to finish the inside profile (flipping the workpiece to round over both sides) another with a raised boss that the resulting hole fit over (after I'd sawed away most of the outside waste) to guide the pattern bit around the outside edge and to hold the resulting ring while I used the roundover bit again to finish the outside of the ring, from both sides. <S> In my case the shape was an oval. <S> For a circle, the second jig may require a wedge or other clamp -- or a temporary hot-glue joint, or a high friction rubber surface -- to keep the ring from spinning while you work on it. <S> A bit of sanding to fair the curves and prep the surface, , finish, and you're done. <S> I'm sure there are many other solutions; this just happened to be the one that suited my needs and my available tools. <A> Lathes are designed to make stuff round. <S> if you have the right chucking equipment (and some of it you can make on the lathe!) <S> you can make on pretty easily. <S> There are several ways to do it but each will involve a couple stages, turn the outside, turn the center, reverse it and clean up the whole thing. <S> Of course if you don't have a lathe or a little experience with one, it becomes much more expensive and difficult, but making round things in general is best done on a lathe. <S> There are many ways to do it, but this is how I've tried it. <S> Took a round piece and mounted it between the drive center and the tail stock. <S> shaped the outside of the torus <S> (in my case it was a bracelet) and then started cutting toward the inside. <S> when you start getting close to cutting through, you can sand and even wax the parts that are done. <S> then finish parting the ring from the center. <S> This is similar to captive rings on goblet stems are made, but a bit easier (can always look for youtube videos on that). <S> If you have a flat jaws chuck you can remount the piece and sand the inside ring, if not you can finish it by hand. <A> I'd probably start with a cylinder and round over the edges. <S> From there you can trace a template for the interior and use a jigsaw to cut it. <S> Then you can found over the inside corners and tidy it up with files/rasps. <S> Constantly checking the fit and feel might help mitigate the lack of precision. <A> I haven't done it myself, but for ease, I would use a wood lathe, starting out with a lot of the same gear to make a bowl. <S> Here's a standard tutorial on making a bowl on a wood lathe: <S> http://www.wikihow.com/Turn-a-Crotch-Bowl <S> As you are finishing, you can cut off the torus from the end of the cylinder. <S> There would be a part of it with a slightly flat edge at the end, where the torus is cut off from the cylinder, but you could probably use some sanding tools to make it unnoticeable. <A> Wood selection takes back seat to wood anatomy, please consider: One of the reasons plywood resists breakage is that the grain of the wood layers is at right angles. <S> If you make a doughnut out of a single plank it will break very easily - at the point where the grain directions points to the center of the circle. <S> If you want something substantial you can try plywood, or try gluing two thinner layers of nice wood together with the grain at right angles, sort of a poor man's plywood. <S> If you look at old ship's wheels, large wooden gears, or old carriage wheels you will see how the problem of "not" breaking with the grain has been solved in many different ways. <S> Species choice: <S> Species like Ulmus (Elm) with helical grain are probably better for this kind of thing. <S> And lots harder to work dry Elm than other species.
| Surprise, surprise, my recommendation is of course the lathe. Instead of forming out a bowl shape, you could begin to form a cylinder, and then easily carve out the rounded shape of a torus at the end of the cylinder as the piece is spinning.
|
How challenging is it to sand a stained oak floor? I am about to do a little touching up of a stained oak floor. I am concerned that sanding the floor with a machine would be infeasible because it means that the stain would be gone from some parts more than others, and then it will be necessary to do a heavy sanding, staining from scratch, and apply multiple polyurethane coats. In your experience, is it possible to do local touching up of such a floor, perhaps by a tedious but more gentle hand sanding? Or is it just a job that has to be done for the entire area? <Q> It depends. <S> If it's fairly small, doing it by hand can save time and money and effort. <S> But how small? <S> On top of that <S> it's location is also important. <S> Is it the size of a small throw rug and in the middle of a high traffic area? <S> then it might be a lot harder to get it to match and not stand out like a sore thumb, especially if you haven't done something like that before. <S> Is it under a window where there is some water damage and can be hidden by a piece of furniture? <S> then it might be worth the trouble of hand sanding and refinishing. <S> My dad has completely done several wood floors. <S> Renting a big sander for the floor and doing the whole floor at once (according to my dad) really doesn't take that long and leaves you with the best finish. <S> Last one was my Sister and brother-in-laws dining room floor. <S> It's about 15' x 13' and they had it all sanded in less than a day. <S> So with a little help and planning, the entire floor could be sanded down and refinished in a weekend. <S> (depending on size of floor) <A> I would opine that hand-sanding any significant area of floor is just not viable. <S> It's not that it's actually impossible, but the amount of work — both time and effort — needed to do it <S> is just so great that it's infeasible for the average person. <S> It's backbreaking work, both literally and figuratively. <S> You can however get down to bare wood by handwork in a reasonable timeframe, by using one of a couple of types of scraper. <S> For much more than that you're probably better advised to use a scraper plane or a gullwing scraper, e.g. Stanley no. 80. <S> I should mention that neither of these last two options is inexpensive; card scrapers on the other hand are cheap. <S> Or is it just a job that has to be done for the entire area? <S> Broadly speaking, yes. <S> Varnishes are considered un-repairable finishes, while this isn't absolutely true it does mean that touch-ups and additions are hard to impossible to do without them being obvious and in addition to visibility fresh varnish does not bond well to fully-cured varnishes so there is a high potential for peeling at the edges. <A> The correct answer or at least the canon answer @bowlturner has already mentioned. <S> Doing the whole room is the best way to do things. <S> That said...its more expensive and more time-consuming. <S> If your problem is in the middle of a floor, in a high traffic area, spread out over a decent sized area (2 sq feet ore more really) or otherwise blatantly obvious... <S> yeah <S> you are going to have to sand everything (it would be best if you could post a picture of the area you need to fix). <S> Now... <S> all that said I have touched up spots on floors before... <S> and while they personally drive me insane because I see every minute flaw, most don't notice. <S> For a relatively small flaw/area here is what I have done (and to all the perfectionists, <S> no... <S> I am not proud of this :) ) <S> Tape around the area as tightly as you can <S> , meaning don't make it a square. <S> Give about 1/2 inch between the tape and the flaw(s) <S> all the way around. <S> Make sure you use quality tape that will not pull up. <S> Sand... <S> yeah <S> I said it... <S> sand. <S> Now. <S> How much you sand depends on the depth of the flaw. <S> If it is just a flaw in the finish...ignore everything I said, get some floor wax and buff the crap out of it. <S> Problem solved. <S> If it is deeper, meaning into the wood, sand as needed to smooth things out, apply a stain absorbing filler if necessary. <S> Sand the entire taped area at least enough to roughen up the finish. <S> Clean really really really well. <S> Apply finish. <S> I actually use an aerosol spray finish most of the time <S> , they usually come in satin, semi-gloss and gloss. <S> Spray the finish and let it dry completely, use thin coats of finish. <S> Sand. <S> Apply finish. <S> Sand <S> Apply finish. <S> Pull the tape painter style ( <S> back on itself rather than up). <S> Sand with a smooth grit paper or sometimes you can get away with a 0000 steel wool...be gentle either way. <S> Once that is done <S> buff/polish the floor <S> and it should blend in pretty decently. <S> This method is all about touch, go light, if you're heavy handed it'll just be a pain
| For a small enough area, anything roughly the size of a table, you could comfortably use a card scraper (see bottom of previous Answer ).
|
Drilling a straight, centered hole down square-cross-section bar stock? I'm trying to drill a centered, straight hole in a piece without a big drill press and a bunch of clamps and brackets, which seems to be the usual way to do it. I can manage straight, but centered is eluding me . I'm very new to working wood and I'm working on an umbrella swift for my partner to wind yarn on. Part of this involves an axle (in this case, simple dowel) and a couple of square-sided blocks that rotate around it. A bit of friction is actively desirable, so this isn't even going to get a sheave bearing, let alone anything fancier. I'm having a lot of trouble drilling a straight, centered hole down the square stock, and tend to get a hole that's off center and/or not straight. With a basic drill guide (collar style) I can get it pretty straight, but setting the work piece perfectly perpendicular is tricky since the edges from where it's cut off the bar stock aren't quite square after hand-sawing. (Maybe I should be using a mitre box?). I'm dealing with this by mounting it in a vise and measuring it carefully before tightening. Getting the hole centered is just not working though. I drill a small pilot hole with a 2-bit, but it still tends to wander half a mil off center once it bites and starts drilling. I suspect it might be because of the soft pine I'm working with and the fact that I'm drilling down the line of the grain, not across it, but I don't have much choice about that. Widening the hole tends to make the situation worse, as the bit again tends to wander before biting properly. If I go straight to the 12mm spade bit for the full width cut it tends to wander more, rather than less. I'm also getting a hole that's usually not quite round - slightly distorted on three sides. Is this because I'm drilling with the grain? Please forgive my ignorance. I've been hunting around for info, but mostly finding things focused on drilling down the center of round stock like dowel, where you can spin the stock in a drill and use a fixed bit. That's not an option here. (I suspect this is like those programming questions I get on SO, where someone wants to know "how to build a dynamic website with PostgreSQL", where the answer is "let me write a book" or "where do I start"... but I'm hoping there are just a few simple tricks I'm missing here.) Current results: <Q> Guides, clamps drill presses are things that are needed to get the precision you are looking for. <S> In my opinion your first picture is very good for a hand drilled hole. <S> Simple cheap miter boxes can be found (at least here in the US for under $50). <S> Might be worth the investment. <S> Another option is the lathe. <S> Most people don't think of a lathe for drilling but it can be done. <S> There are chucks that can be put in the tail stock to hold drill bits. <S> then when the wood is spinning the chuck is extended into the wood. <S> So at least in my opinion, to improve on your first picture, you likely need to invest in some more equipment, or find a place you could rent some time to get it done, like a Maker Space. <A> You may want to try drilling the hole with a lip and spur (brad point) type of drill bit. <S> When using it do not start with the smaller pilot hole. <A> Really good effort, <S> but you've chosen an incredibly difficult task to accomplish with hand tools. <S> I suggest you skip over the bothersome accuracy and go straight to the metal shop. <S> Buy 2 of these: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IG7PBNA <S> (amazon asin: B00IG7PBNA, described as "Item # 101260, Oilube <S> ® Powdered Metal Bronze SAE841 Sleeve Bearings / Bushings - INCH"). <S> You could even hit the plumbing supply aisle and get a "copper coupler without stop" and find a dowel that'll suit the inside diameter. <S> Drill an oversized hole and simply epoxy the sleeves at each end. <S> You'll be able to center them perfectly with a bit of shimming, and you'll have a slop-free half inch for your dowel/axle. <A> Cut the block in half lengthwise. <S> Use your router to cut 1/2 of a hole in each piece lengthwise (like a trench). <S> Glue the blocks back together. <S> Alternatively, if you have a plunge router, and the hole you need is not too deep, very carefully, a little at a time, cut the hole with that. <A> With any work you need to define tolerances <S> so we know how big everything is and what degree of error is permissible. <S> Using a softwood dowel as an axel seems like an unrewarding plan. <S> Why not metal? <S> Normally woodworkers use "auger" bits to bore holes. <S> You need a stable setup to use them, meaning usually a drill press or a bushing. <S> If all you have is a hand drill, then you will need to make a bushing, which can be a short piece of pipe, the same diameter as the hole. <S> This needs to be mounted 90-degrees in a flange. <S> If you don't want to make the bushing, you can buy them (search drill guide bushing). <S> There are also devices called "doweling jigs" that serve a similar function. <A> With a basic drill guide (collar style) I can get it pretty straight, but setting the work piece perfectly perpendicular is tricky Start with oversize stock large enough for a drill guide. <S> Mark the cut lines for the square faces. <S> Mark the diagonals. <S> They intersect in the centre of your hole. <S> Drill. <S> Cut. <S> since the edges from where it's cut off the bar stock aren't quite square after hand-sawing. <S> (Maybe I should be using a mitre box?). <S> Get a compound mitre slide saw. <S> And a drill press.
| If you had a drill press then a Forstner bit may be the ticket for a clean hole.
|
Crosscutting 18" diameter logs by hand I tried my hand at crosscutting a beefy 18" log with a relatively low tooth-per-inch bowsaw today. I eventually made it all the way through, but not without cutting V-slices into the wood to give the blade breathing room and prevent it from constantly jamming, especially as I got into the heartwood. I should also mention that it took me forever . Am I missing something here? I wonder if I used the right tool or if I should have been hammering in wedges or something. Should I have just used an axe? (Hand-tool related answers only please – not interested in using chainsaws for various reasons.) More details: The log I was cutting was green. The bow saw has no set and was brand new. <Q> I suspect the issue here is with the bowsaw blade not having enough 'set' to the teeth. <S> The 'set' of the teeth on a saw blade is how far to either side the teeth are bent out from the main body of the blade, which makes the width of the cut wider and gives the body of the blade some clearance in the saw groove (kerf). <S> Some bowsaw blades have no set (referred to as zero set); from what I understand bowsaw blades of this type are intended to cut green wood, that is wood that is still very fresh and still quite wet. <S> So if you were cutting a seasoned or even part-dried log the blade would naturally struggle. <S> One good general aid to a saw binding in the kerf is to wax the blade. <S> The simplest way to do this is quickly swipe a block or wax or the butt of a candle along the saw. <S> This can make a remarkable amount of difference. <S> Keeping the cut open with wedges as you ask about might also be beneficial. <S> It certainly can't hurt to try. <A> Keep the gap open with wedges. <S> Next to that, sharp teeth are the most important thing. <S> I learned that lesson with a chainsaw -- even though the engine was doing the work, a dull chain got me nowhere, and after sharpening, it cut like a hot knife through butter. <A> How was the log supported? <S> You might consider putting a sawbuck or a piece of log directly under the kerf, making an orientation similar to a see-saw, so that gravity pulls the two halves of the log such that the kerf is self-opening. <S> This is commonly used when chainsawing logs in the woods so that the saw doesn't get pinched, and it should be applicable to handsaws as well.
| If the teeth have set it may just not be enough for the type of cut you were doing, the depth of cut specifically.
|
What's an appropriate wood type for making toy blocks? The wife wants to create custom painted toy blocks as a gift for a friend. The block will be approximately 3 inches per side, or whatever dimension is convenient based on the wood I purchase. I plan on cutting them using table saw. What type of wood is appropriate for this project? Ideally it would be available at a big home improvement center, but I'm open to other options if they have significant advantages. <Q> The big box home improvement centers in my area don't stock nice lumber thicker than 3/4". <S> 2x pine lumber, sure, but <S> nothing you'd want to use to make a kids toy that might go in a mouth. <S> Dimensionally stable Clear grain (not likely to produce splinters) Takes paint <S> well Check resistant (holds up to being slobbered on) <S> Will last for more than one generation of kids. <A> Actually 2x4's could be perfectly fine for this, depending on what you are actually looking for as an end product. <S> They come in thicker dimensions and are a softer wood. <S> If you are looking to make something more like this <S> Then I'd go with a hard wood. <S> Oak, Maple are both good woods to use. <S> I would look for a species that they have in both regular lumber and matching dowels. <A> I have made many blocks using birch. <S> It's a durable hardwood, not as heavy as maple and generally more affordable. <S> As reasonable as 3" cubes might sound, you might be very happy with 1 1/2" cubes which would be a size for which you could easily acquire wood. <S> You would buy 2" boards and by the time you get them planed smooth <S> you will be looking at something close to 1 1/2". <S> Also, small hands will have trouble grasping 3" blocks, and when those wee hands grow a little, the 3 inchers can become heavy, dangerous missiles. <S> It is interesting to note that the traditional Tinkertoys were made from birch. <A> You should consider allergies and toxicity. <S> Maple gives you all the properties you want and is hypoallergenic. <S> It's why most wooden toys are made of maple. <A> Here in Canada Habitat for Humanity runs Re-Use <S> -It stores. <S> You can get all sorts of interesting stuff, usually close outs, or salvage. <S> One of the things I've seen frequently are small lots of hardwood flooring. <S> This might be more trouble than it's worth if pre-finished. <S> The bottom face usually has several wide shallow grooves, so it would require planing, or gluing back to back to another piece. <S> The pre-finished ones are very hard, with a thin layer of aluminum oxide. <S> Might be tough on blades.
| I would recommend hard maple for its properties:
|
What is the simplest joint for a non-experienced woodworker to start with? I would like to start designing some boxes based on an idea that I have. But I've never worked with wood before and I have no woodworking tools so I would need to purchase whatever tools are required. I'm trying to get a direction to aim for that would allow to me to begin building some basic boxes that are still decent quality. What would be the joint to use?What would be the tools required to create that joint? <Q> Butt joints are the easiest joint to make and have been used for centuries. <S> You need to account for the width of the corners that over lap when making size cuts with this joint <S> but it isn't that hard. <S> Screws, glue, nails all can be used to attach the joint, depending on the use the box will be used for. <S> The only tools you really need for this joint is a drill to pilot the holes through the face board so the ends don't split and <S> either a screw driver to drive the screws or a hammer to drive the nails. <S> If you want to up things a notch you can move on to mitered joints, People use dowels, splines, nails, glue, and screws to secure these joints. <S> They will need more tools and a little more skill to perform well. <S> Minimum these need a miter to make the cut. <S> One last thing. <S> a 'Box joint' is actually a specific kind of joint. <S> this you need a saw or a router to make even cuts on both corners that will interweave to make a nice solid corner. <A> I am a novice woodworker. <S> I found pocket hole joints easy and sturdy. <S> You'll need: a pocket hole jig Drill <S> Driver and the appropriate screws The biggest negative to a pocket hole joint is the large pocket holes. <S> You can will need to use a nice bit of filler to cover it or use a plug. <A> This requires very little in the way of tools at the most basic, in theory you only need one saw to cut your wood to length. <S> Then you simply fasten the pieces together — this can be done with glue alone, and without the aid of clamps if necessary. <S> I should mention that only glued <S> this joint is not particularly strong, however for boxes it can be strong enough. <S> However sawing would leave a rougher surface on the cut ends of the wood that should be smoothed and this would really then require one or more additional tools, for example a hand plane or a powered sander of some sort (manual sanding is an option but it takes a lot of effort). <S> Even if the sawn edges are properly smoothed this sort of joint is not considered very attractive, but that said if you use attractive wood the box will have an inherent beauty from the material used. <S> You also need to consider the box bottom. <S> Again the simplest option here would be to cut a rectangle or square of wood, hardboard or plywood and just glue it to the edges of the four-sided box frame that you made previously. <S> But again this is considered ugly by many people (particularly where plywood is used) and most box makers hide the bottom by insetting it into grooves in the sides. <S> However, forming the needed groove or rebate/rabbet requires further tools, and some experience to do well. <S> You could get away with just sawing a smaller piece of wood that is exactly sized to the hole in the four sides and simply glueing this in place. <S> Not the strongest option but can be strong enough, particularly for smaller boxes or where the box is not intended to take heavy contents. <A> Although others have mentioned the butt joint as simple, I don't recommend it for beginners (unless you are using a biscuit jig), because due to its extreme simplicity alignment is very hard to get perfect. <S> I like to start with a lap joint, which because it has an internal stop simplifies alignment to the point that all alignment can be done with one hand (if not large/heavy), and clamping is simpler. <S> A lap joint does require a table saw, but you don't always need a dado head or to double cut. <S> You can get a basic lap joint with just the width of your blade. <S> Admittedly this is does not produce much of a lip, but it makes a difference.
| The corner butt joint would be the very simplest joint to use for joining the sides of a box:
|
How to bend chipboard into a cylinder without tearing it apart? I am currently trying to make a cylinder out of chipboard(the cardboard that notebooks are typically made out of). However, whenever I try to bend it, parts of the chipboard start to tear. How do I bend chipboard without tearing it apart? <Q> I'm going to run with the assumption that you're referring to paperboard or a thin hardboard. <S> Think of the paperboard as being like a sausage: it has a skin on it that keeps the good bits in, but if you bend it too far, that skin will tear. <S> Scoring hardboard <S> Your best option (steam would probably damage the board, as Matt mentioned) would be to score the board at intervals. <S> This will allow you to control where the skin breaks. <S> From here, you'll probably want to coat the gaps with glue or something to prevent them from becoming easy points of failure. <S> This will mean that your cylinder will not be perfect, it will be somewhat angled at each score line. <S> A smaller distance between scores will help hide this. <S> Another option: laminated layers of posterboard/thin paperboard <S> If this doesn't work for you, you could try laminating instead: use a thin paperboard that's easy to use. <S> Make a cylinder with that <S> (You probably want to use a center form to get the diameter right, try circles made of wood). <S> Then glue the outside and roll another piece of paperboard over that, adding successive layers until it's the desired thickness. <S> This lamination method is likely a better option for you: it will be more durable than simple hardboard and will be under less stress. <S> If you're using thin paperboard rather than posterboard, I would leave a small gap at the final seam and use epoxy to give it a secure seal that's unlikely to peel away from the cylinder. <A> The more you pull the board over an edge like the side of a bench or table saw, the tighter the radius of the curve will be. <S> Depending on the size, you can keep going until the two edges meet up, forming your cylinder. <A> Another approach would be to place a flexible but firm backer on both sides of the paperboard. <S> A thin plastic sheet from a folder or package would work. <S> Clamp them together, and then bend the 'sandwiched' materials, which would keep the paperboard from folding. <S> join the edges when they meet, and then the paperboard will hold its shape. <A> When bending around a form, the outside needs to stretch, so it tears. <S> When bending inside a form the inside compresses - it may wrinkle a bit, but it won't tear. <S> Something like a sheet of aluminum flashing might make a suitable tension support for stiff cardboard (chipboard has a different connotation over here - oriented strand board, a plywood like substance glued up from chips of wood.) <S> In wood bending both a strap and form are used, commonly. <S> Here's an image to show the general idea from "Model T forum"
| For paperboard running the material over a hard edge with a little tension will put some curvature in the board. Aside from wetting it, you will have better success (probably) by treating it like wood-bending - provide a tension support on the outside when bending, rather than bending it around a form on the inside. Additionally, you can overlap seams so there won't be a single weak point.
|
Is Frank Howarth's homemade table saw splitter safe? Frank Howarth made a splitter by creating a zero clearance insert, and then extending the kerf all the way through the back of the insert, towards the back of the table saw. He then glued thin strips of wood inside the kerf behind the blade. I plan to create a zero clearance insert for my Powermatic 64, and also want to add a splitter. Frank's method would kill two birds with one stone. Is Frank's design safe? Note, there is no possibility of attaching a riving knife for my particular saw, which would be better than a statically mounted splitter. <Q> The main issue with this splitter is like any other splitter - it has a fixed distance from the table. <S> Since the saw blade is raised or lowered depending on what is being cut, the distance between the spiltter and blade will decrease or increase. <S> Since the safest splitter is one that is closest to the blade as possible, when making shallow cuts this splitter will be less effective. <S> However, if this is used as a zero-clearance-insert with splitter for every common height setting (for example, 3 inserts for 1/4", 1/2" and 3/4" stock), this could provide better safety. <S> From the video, it doesn't seem like he is chamfering the edge of the splitter that is facing the blade. <S> Finally, making the splitter out of wood is probably prone to breaking the splitter. <S> The kerf of the saw blade is narrow (even more so with a thin-kerf blade), and such a thin piece of wood is not strong. <S> A piece of plastic or metal would probably be stronger, or maybe some high quality thin plywood (I'm not sure they even make plywood this thin though). <A> I'd really worry about the oak splitter itself splitting along the grain. <S> Imagine that leading edge catching on the wood, breaking, and jamming into the kerf. <S> Could get entertaining. <S> If you like the design, I'd switch to using model aircraft plywood . <S> You can get very thin sheets that still have multiple layers. <S> You don't need three-ply 1/64" plywood (!), but five-ply 1/8" plywood would be much stronger <S> and I think safer than the oak. <A> Caveat: "I know nothing! <S> Nothing! <S> " I'm far from a sophisticated user of table saws, and paranoid enough that I paid the extra for a saw with "airbags" despite knowing that most table saw injuries happen to pros who have started taking the beast for granted. <S> Having said that... <S> There are certainly aftermarket splitters, which presumably use some concept of lining up with the blade. <S> I suspect those are more robust and fine-tunable. <S> With a homebrew I'd be a bit worried about it coming loose unexpectedly.
| You should - it will prevent the wood from bumping into the splitter in case the wood gets even a little twisted after the saw blade.
|
Dealing with knots "bleeding" through paint I'm sure that people have seen this where you would be painting something white or lightish colour only to have the resin from the knots bleed through paint sometime later. Similar to what you see in the following picture. For my latest project I knew this was a possibility so I coated the knots with some shellac. However after about a month it still came through. I am sure if it was dried properly this might not have happened but the project was a large storage shelf that did not fit in my oven. So I have 2 related questions: What should I have done to try and prevent this? What can I do to correct the damage after it has occurred. <Q> Shellac primer is the way to go maybe more than one coat <S> and you should allow it to cure, which is different than drying. <S> I use spray cans of this: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Zinsser-1-qt-B-I-N-White-Advanced-Synthetic-Shellac-Primer-4-Pack-271009/205421238?cm_mmc=Shopping%7cBase&gclid=CJP986HPzsYCFQ-PaQodAm0B7g&gclsrc=aw.ds <S> Spray <S> the spots that are bleeding, lightly sand them and then apply an even coat of paint, ideally to the whole wall, though you can do the spot and feather the paint out from there... <S> the potential drawback is you may get flashing on the paint if you don't do the whole wall. <S> If the first coat of primer still bleeds through, sand lightly to smooth things out and spray on another coat. <S> Any oil based, or shellac based primer should do the trick, though it may take more than a single coat. <S> I know we don't do product recommendations... <S> but I am recommending that one as I have used it many times in the last 15 years <S> and it works great. <S> Oh... <S> and shellac based primer... <S> really really stinks. <A> What should I have done to try and prevent this? <S> Instead of shellac-based primer as already recommended (although very effective it can be inordinately expensive) <S> I was actually going to recommend shellac itself, but then I read you'd already tried this <S> and it wasn't effective. <S> However, I think the reason you got bleed-through wasn't a fault in the shellac but probably just that it wasn't applied in a heavy enough 'cut' (cut traditionally refers to dilution rates for shellac when made up from scratch). <S> Rather than make a heavier cut you can simply apply further coats since it's the total thickness of the shellac layer that is important, not how many applications it took to achieve it. <S> Unfortunately I can't recommend a specific number of coats. <S> Erring on the side of caution I suppose three would be the minimum to apply, and as one of the chief advantages of shellac is the very fast drying time this shouldn't take that long. <S> Apply more than three if patience allows. <S> What can I do to correct the damage after it has occurred. <S> The bad news you were probably expecting: you should really remove the paint, treat the knots and re-paint. <A> Previous owners of my place solved this by going the other way -- they used white stain on the porch, so the wood shows through a bit everywhere and any bleeding knots just add a bit more rustic character. <A> Has no one else of thought of using knotting solution? <S> It's an oil based coating for bare wood that you paint on the knots. <S> This stops the bleed through to the paint. <S> My house is full of white painted pine. <S> Works a charm. <A> The only method I have found that works 100% to hide these stains is to use a two part epoxy marine paint as your primer. <S> Reason being that two part epoxies cure by chemical cross-linking as opposed to most paints that cure by solvent/water evaporation. <S> The cured epoxy film makes an impervious barrier for the wood resins. <S> Of course these epoxy paints are expensive so the moral of the story is: don't use knotty pine if you can afford clear pine ( or whatever species suits your fancy). <A> wood filler Heat treat it, effectively drawing all the tannins from the knot like a summer would do over many years. <S> Then apply J H Ratcliffes Stytic Sealer with two coats, then finish in normal way <S> Don't use timber with knots in. <A> My two cents... <S> Remember, when working with shellac, you must use a "fresh" batch. <S> Nearly all shellac is only viable for about a year after flakes have been mixed with alcohol. <S> Premixed brands claim a three year shelf life, but in my opinion that is a stretch. <S> Shellac should be all that is needed to block nearly any bleeding. <A> More work and possibly not feasible but would it solve the problem if one drills out the knots and replaces with a dowel? <S> Thinking of grain direction too. <A> I have used ordinary wood filler, just like you would fill a hole or indentations. <S> This makes the paint color fine and consistent, but there will still be a round flat spot if you look closely, so it may be impossible to remove all signs of the knot. <A> primer I have tried everything, I found rustolium grey aerosol primer sealer or krylon aerosol spay primer. <S> These seem to stop the bleed through recoat with kilz primer (premium) then top coat with the color. <S> These seal the wood from the paint. <S> Just make sure the can states it is suitable for wood
| Correcting after it has occurred: only solution I can think of is to re-seal (shellac's single nicest feature may be that it sticks to both water- and oil-based finishes) and repaint (might be able to get away with just painting that area, feathering out the edges of the new paint to blend it with the surroundings). There are 3 ways to stop a knot bleeding through: Remove the knot and either plug it with timber or 2-pack
|
Turning a railroad tie into a bench, how to make a cut? I have a couple leftover railroad ties from a retaining wall I built and I would like to turn them into benches. Rather than sit on the old tar covered exterior though I would like to cut a bit of it off as in this fantastically drawn image: That is a profile view so you are looking at it from the side. Basically I would like to leave about 6 inches the full height on each side then cut a curve about two inches tall so that the seat portion is 6" thick. How do I make this cut and what tools will I need? Keep in mind that the lumber is 8" x 8" x 10' so getting it up on a workbench is out of the question. <Q> A quick search shows blades that are 10" long which might be enough for the reciprocating saw. <S> A 12" pruning blade like this bad boy from Amazon for example. <S> Might not be the best example but as long as the gullets are deep enough ( they would need to be for this. ) <S> it should work. <S> Making wedges from the sides until there is enough room to work the tool though the 6" region. <S> Need to be really careful using the chainsaw. <S> Very dangerous tool. <S> Especially for the stance you might need to make this cut. <S> If you had an old style enormous hand saw for ripping the tie <S> I imagine that would work as well as seen in this blog <S> Coming at it from the side with a broad axe would work as well. <S> In the same vein as how logs are rough shaped into timber. <S> You could also cut vertically down was a saw (hand or powered) <S> several times across the length of the seat and pop out the waste with a large timber chisel or slick. <S> Creosote <S> Much like I said in my comment those ties are commonly treated with creosote which is a known skin irritant amongst other health concerns like causing chemical burns. <S> While you might be avoiding exposure by sealing it I will still mention this because the risk is there while processing the tie as well (sawdust and what not.). <S> Even if no one sits on it. <S> Your skin and lungs are not worth it. <A> Use a chainsaw or horizontal bandsaw to remove a 2"x8"x10' slice, then cut the ends off that slice, trim to the desired angle, and glue the ends back on. Or go Roy Underhill on that railroad tie and use an axe to rough out the seat and a broad axe to clean it up. <S> Protect yourself from the creosote while working by wearing pants, a long-sleeved shirt, and a respirator. <S> You mentioned it will be sealed and/or will be purely decorative so presumably the creosote won't be an issue after it's built. <S> As a child I spent countless hours sitting on a railroad tie retaining wall in my parents' front yard, but I don't recall a tar-like finish <S> so maybe my parents' railroad ties weren't coated in creosote. <A> With the others I recommend to take care if your railroad tie is an actual tie that was treated and not just one cut to size. <S> Now I'm going to recommend the adz <S> , it's an ax like tool that has been used to shape logs for ages. <S> This would allow you to do most of the rough shaping relatively quickly, it will work well with the tie laying on the ground as well. <S> Then you could smooth it out with draw knives and hand planes even to a hand sander if you so desire. <A> I can imagine Roy Underhill using a draw knife for a project like this <S> and he would likely have the job completed in less than twenty-five minutes. <S> One major advantage of draw knife is that you will not be dealing with sawdust, just shavings. <S> rprIt's going to take more time <S> and you might develop a blister or two if you don't wear gloves, but you will have total control and you will finish the job with a grin like Roy's. <S> You might also become proficient at sharpening the draw knife.
| I don't know how "pretty" it needs to be when its done but rough cuts can easily be done with a chainsaw or a reciprocating saw with a long enough blade.
|
How can you safely operate a router table without a fence? I am now the proud owner of a used router and table. I am just getting ready to use it for the first time and was reading some emails and saw the following ad. Image from WoodPeck So almost all pictures I see of router tables have a fence or guard in play. In that picture they are not using a fence. I would think that the super fast moving blade would be a reason to have something for safety. So can you operate the router, on a table, without a fence or guard safely? Assuming I can what, besides a fence, can I be using on the router table. <Q> The bit they are using in that picture has a bearing on the top part that is sticking out of the table (which is actually the bottom of the bit, because routers are inverted in a router table). <S> Bits with bearings like that are safe to operate without a fence, because the bearing spins, acting as a guide as the stock is pushed along the bit. <S> It doesn't matter which angle the stock approaches the bit from, because the bit is symmetrical, and as soon as the stock hits the bearing, the bit will not be able to cut any deeper. <S> The bit in the picture is known as a flush trim bit. <S> In a router table, the bit can be used to trace a pattern. <S> In the picture, the pattern is provided by the Woodpecker's jig. <S> The curve of the jig will be cut into the work piece. <S> As the work piece is pushed into the router, the bearing is pushed against the jig template. <S> Because the cutting blade is flush with the bearing, the pattern the bearing rides against will be cut into the work piece. <S> If that is difficult to picture, it may be helpful to view a video of it being done. <S> Here is one I found on YouTube. <S> With no bearing, there is nothing controlling the depth of the cut. <S> The fence does that for you. <A> Sure. <S> In the picture above, the bit has a bearing on it, which sort of acts as a fence. <S> I have that exact set of Woodpecker's radius jigs and use them exactly as pictured. <S> I don't know what purpose there would be in using a non-bearing bit on a router table without a fence or some sort of fixture to guide the cut, but you could do it. <S> You will often see a router table with a place for a post near the bit. <S> This allows you to pivot the work into the bit in a more controlled manner. <A> As a point of comparison, I operate a router table without a fence or guide roughly half of the time that I use one. <S> For example, if I am making picture frames, I will use a rabbet bit with a guide bearing to rout out the space at the inside-back of the frame where the glass and picture go. <S> If one uses push blocks and keeps one's hands sufficiently far from the bit, there is little danger involved. <S> If I am doing a simple edge profile on the frame (roundover, ogee, etc.) <S> I will use the bit's built-in guide as well and not worry about trying to set the fence just right. <S> Otherwise, I have seen people us a router totally freehand (no bearing on the bit and no table) for a few purposes ( clearing the waste from dovetails and inlay for two examples). <S> It can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, especially if you try to take too big of a cut. <S> You also have to be very cognizant of grain and keep a firm grip on the router to keep it from skating all over and ruining your piece.
| Bits without bearings generally require a fence to use.
|
Do auger bits have advantages? While not the focus of the question I wanted to point out that when it comes to drill presses I almost always see forstner bits suggested here at WW (for good reason of course). Much to my surprise in this answer from Graphus he suggested using auger bits instead. He mentions that depth of cut and price are key factors in choosing auger bits. Albeit a drill press was not the tool he suggested but I was still surprised. Understandably spade bits would be at the bottom of choice but when it comes to making holes in wood what criteria would make me choose auger bits over something like a forstner? The latter I have come to understand are superior. Maybe they are but only under certain conditions? It is possible those are the answers and that maybe forstner bits should only be used in drill presses. If nothing else this can be a place for that answer. <Q> The problems with forstner bits is that they only have a portion of the bit (half an inch or so) that is as wide as the hole you are cutting. <S> Whereas with an auger the entire length of the auger is as wide as the hole. <S> This helps keep the hole straight. <S> Augers on the other hand are much longer. <S> The result of this is that an auger bit is better to drill deep holes and when you can't control the drill as well. <A> One of the greatest advantages of an auger bit is in its name--it works like an auger, carrying away the chips and shavings that it produces. <S> Auger bits are also available in very long sizes and are very rigid (i.e., they won't flex as easily as spade bits). <S> They work best in low-speed, high-torque tools, including both power drills and hand braces. <S> Bosch has an article outlining some benefits and common applications of auger bits. <S> As ratchet freak pointed out, the design also inherently allows you to drill a straight hole once the hole is started. <A> Augur bits generally have longer shafts and can have much longer shafts, allowing for much deeper holes. <S> They also tend to be MUCH cheaper than Forsner bits, so often if you don't need what the Forsner bit is best at, nice flat bottom holes and very smooth sides, the Augers are perfectly fine. <S> As rob and ratchet said, augers also are designed better to drill straight holes when drilling by hand. <S> Such as through studs for running electric. <S> I only use my Forsner bits in my drill press.
| Because the design clears chips better than a twist bit and you can buy auger bits up to 2 feet long, you can often drill very deep holes all the way through without having to take an extra step for chip removal as you would with a long twist or Forstner bit. Forstner bits usually have short shafts (though there are shaft extenders).
|
How do I know when my lathe speed is wrong or could be better? I'm about a year into learning to turn on an inexpensive mini- lathe . I mostly turn small lidded boxes or bowls. With both boxes and bowls, I like them big, so I'm often within an inch or two of the width capacity of the lathe. I turn mostly walnut or spalted maple, though I'm not sure if that makes a difference. The machine is a great starter lathe, but because it is a pain to change speeds, I end up using the slowest speed almost all the time. My question is, am I missing something when I go from roughing all the way to final sanding/polish using only the slowest speed? The main problems I notice in my finished pieces are tear-out that leaves a rough feel on two sides of the piece, no matter how long or attentively I work my way up the grits (I start at 80 and go all the way up to 800 most of the time). I guess my pieces take longer than the folks I admire on Youtube, but I can't tell if that is due to the slow speed, my hesitation, my tools, or the videos' editing...or a combination of all three. It would be really helpful to hear the ways you recognize while you're working that you can or should increase the speed . Thanks in advance! <Q> Yes, speed can make a huge difference. <S> My first lathe was a PSI midi-lathe (not mini) and it required stopping the lathe, opening a panel, and switching the belt to another set of pulley's. <S> A pain. <S> However, you need to do it. <S> While it is recommended to have it slower for unbalanced pieces (roughing it to a cylinder), speeding it up will make a lot of things better. <S> Slower speeds don't always cut as cleanly and need a sharper blade to do a good job. <S> To improve your finish, you can do several things. <S> speed up the lathe will allow for cleaner cuts. <S> When you get near the end, sharpen the chisel and the will also help make cleaner sharper cuts and not tear the wood, which causes the rough spots, especially on the end grain. <S> Last by going faster it dramatically improves the ability to sand the piece quickly and well. <S> I tend after all the cutting is done, to speed up the lathe anyway just for the sanding. <S> It really does help a lot. <S> The time it takes to change the speed is made up in how much faster you can get your piece finished <S> and it looks so much better. <A> am I missing something when I go from roughing all the way to final sanding/polish using only the slowest speed? <S> Try increasing the speed and see for yourself. <S> You could even just pay attention to the difference between working at the perimeter of a large piece compared to working at the center -- the linear speed will be 5x greater at the edge of a 10" diameter piece than it is 1" from the center. <S> tear-out that leaves a rough feel on two sides If you're getting actual tear out, more speed (and very sharp tools) will help. <S> That said, end grain feels different than long grain, so you're always going to have some difference. <S> To get a smooth finish all the way around you'll need to fill the pores with a grain filler. <S> How do I know when my lathe speed is wrong or could be better? <S> If your tools are sharp but aren't cutting as well as you think they should, speed is likely part of the problem. <A> For bowls, usually they are pretty wobbily, so turning up the speed is a bad idea since the lathe will start jumping around. <S> However, once the piece is nicely rounded and the center of mass is more or less in line with the axis of rotation, it is time to turn up the speed. <S> Increasing speed will result in a cleaner cut and smoother finish, in my experience. <S> Also, are you keeping your tools sharp enough? <S> That could explain the tear out. <S> Additionally, I like to go from using gouges for roughing and finishing using scrapers. <S> After using the scrapers, I've usually got a pretty smooth surface that requires little sanding and burnishing. <A> I have the same lathe and agree it's a great starter lathe, and that the speed change is a major PITA! <S> I also don't change the speed often (or at all really), but instead of leaving it on the lowest speed, I leave it in the middle - slow enough to not be too dangerous for starting, but fast enough to get a reasonable cut. <S> To answer your question directly, I think the general rule is you should go as fast as you (safely) can as it will cut cleaner and faster. <S> You only want the lower speeds for starting large, untrue forms. <A> The speed of the lathe is important for a couple reasons. <S> Safety of course, but also the smoothness of the bowl gouge cut. <S> There are charts for recommended speeds <S> but there's an easier way. <S> The speed of the lathe, when turning bowls, should be turned up to the point where vibration begins and then backed down until the vibration is removed. <S> If you have a fixed speed lathe you may need to experiment with various belt settings. <S> Once the bowl shape is formed, the speed can be safely increased. <S> I don't turn a bowl over 1,000 rpm. <S> regardless of size. <S> As for the two rough areas on your bowl, YOU FOUND IT. <S> THE WOOD BOWL TROUBLE ZONE!! <S> ! <S> I'm not kidding. <S> This has bothered me for some time and nobody talks about it. <S> Check out this article that covers the whole thing - https://turnawoodbowl.com/wood-bowl-turning-trouble-zone-dirty-little-secret/ Good luck with your bowl turning!
| You need to try working at different speeds so that you know which speeds give you the best results in which situations. Generally, the lathe needs to be slowest when you first start a bowl blank as it will usually be a bit unbalanced. I've found that it is best to start out with a slow speed at first while the piece you are working is still not rounded.
|
What are some suitable woods to use for tool handles? We all occasionally have to replace a tool handle, be it an axe, a shovel, a sledge, whatever. The standard handle materials seem to be hickory and ash. I've bought my share of hickory handles from hardware stores and have no issues with them. I use ash for lathe tool handles and have used it for file handles as well. Recently I made a hatchet handle out of osage orange (hedge). Historically, osage was used for bows in the southern US, and I've heard legends that an osage bow was worth a horse and a blanket (that's just hearsay, don't quote me on it). It seems to be holding up well, as I would expect from a dense, springy wood. Also, I expect the hatchet head to rust out before the handle rots due to osage's extreme longevity. One website states that hickory and ash are really the only (US domestic) woods worth using. I've thought about trying black locust, also due to its rot resistance and toughness, but this is not readily available in the Chicagoland area. Another forum thread discusses suitable woods in terms of vibration transference. This website also seems to suggest using whatever is available locally and not worrying too much. So, what other woods are suitable for tool handles based on your experience? Sometimes, you just get better results making your own handles than buying them at the store, so knowing which species work (and which species last under use, abuse, and time) would be very helpful. Note that I am more concerned with "long" tool handles, not so much short ones like one would see on a plane or a screwdriver. <Q> One website states that hickory and ash are really the only (US domestic) woods worth using. <S> Obviously just one man's opinion and a gross over-simplification. <S> It's also inherently misleading because it's light on detail. <S> In reality while hickory is broadly speaking worthy of its reputation as a premier handle wood it obscures certain facts. <S> The first is if you're buying an axe or sledge <S> handle it should be pale in colour because it should be sapwood only. <S> It is hickory sapwood that (usually) makes great handle stock, an important detail that people tend to forget to mention all too frequently. <S> Any reddish wood in a handle is the heartwood. <S> Now hickory heartwood is fine wood, but not ideal for handles of this type. <S> It would be perfectly well suited to chisel handles, plane totes and knobs, but then so are many other strong, hard or dense hardwoods as traditionally favoured for these. <S> This website also seems to suggest using whatever is available locally and not worrying too much. <S> I think this is worth paying attention to as they make many sage points. <S> So, what other woods are suitable for tool handles.... <S> Note that I am more concerned with "long" tool handles I hate to say it <S> but it might best be summarised as: <S> forget the species, what's this piece <S> like? <S> Wood is inherently a variable material, so one piece of hickory (or ash, poplar, oak, willow, yew, walnut, birch, etc. <S> etc.) is not equal to another. <S> And no single piece is quantified by a broad description of the species, no matter how accurate it is in general. <S> Another consideration: beyond the species, beyond the flexibility or the shock-absorbency of the wood chosen, grain orientation in the handle is perhaps of equal or greater significance. <S> The most obvious aspect of this is the grain should be aligned with the axis of force when the tool is in use <S> (it should run front-to-back in the eye of the tool head) but as well as this for a long haft grain run-out should be minimal or absent. <S> Summarised in this diagram from a US Forest Service handbook: <S> An extensive guide to axes which includes a section on 'hanging' that you might find informative: An Ax to Grind: A Practical Ax Manual . <S> The author is firmly in favour of hickory! <A> Another consideration is the wood's effect on steel. <S> Some woods like oak have acidic tannins in them that stain and promote rust, so oak is rarely used for that reason. <A> As an overview: Consider the type of stress the handle will be subjected to. <S> Then the handle's best wood choice will be a function of resistance to the abuse normal use will inflict on it. <S> Chisel handle: <S> resist longitudinal stress from mallet blows. <S> Large crosscut saw handle <S> : resist splitting from blade flexing Axe handle, claw hammer handle: <S> resist crushing and longitudinal shock (splitting) <S> Long handled shovel <S> - Resist the tendency of the retaining screw to break loose or split the tail of the handle. <S> So, since no single species of local wood answers the call everywhere, traditionally there was no one best wood for handles. <S> The long experience of others before us shows what works well. <S> Example - most older quality chisels, made in the USA, have hard maple handles. <S> Rakes and shovels usually had elm handles because of the helical grain. <S> Both hickory and ash were used for axes. <S> Your osage orange example is what I meant by local woods in the past. <S> It was not easily available in New York State, for example. <S> I live in Southwest desert and it is available here today. <S> Doesn't grow here. <S> 40 years ago I could not buy it anywhere. <A> Personally, I have to stay away from working in hickory(allergy, go figure), so I've experimented with a few other woods. <S> It tends to be exceedingly straight and clear grained. <S> Other good choices (and also another bow materials) are lemon wood and yew. <S> Although, be careful with the Yew dust, particularly the bark, as it contains a few nasty chemicals/toxins. <S> I agree with @Graphus entirely. <S> Often, it will come down to the particular piece of wood in hand. <S> The clearest, hardest poplar you come across will still probably beat out a twisted, knotty piece of Ash.
| I have really enjoyed the few handles I've made from local maples.
|
Is all fine grit count sandpaper called wet/dry? I need to start getting into sharpening and honing so naturally one of the ways I could go would be to get some sandpaper in the 500 + grit count range. (That decision is based off a great video I saw from Paul Sellers that suggest this being a more economical method when starting out. ) At most home improvement stores, in the sections where I normally find sandpaper, the highest grit count I will come across is around 320. However, in automotive sections I find the higher grit counts I am looking for which is usually up to 2000! They are advertised as wet/dry paper. So is all the very fine/high grit count paper actually wet/dry sandpaper? Is wet/dry just a gimmick of terms? If I find anything with the right grit count does it matter what kind of paper it is (assuming there are multiple kinds)? <Q> So is all the very fine grit count paper actually wet/dry sandpaper? <S> No. <S> You can get regular papers that go to 400, 600 and even 800 grit (or equivalents). <S> But as a broad generalisation if you see paper that's dark grey, with dark backing paper, it'll be the wet-and-dry type even if it doesn't specifically call itself that. <S> Is wet/dry just a gimmick of terms? <S> No, absolutely not. <S> They use a waterproof adhesive, and the paper itself is resin impregnated to make it water-resistant (you notice it when you try to saturate it and the water initially beads up on the back). <S> With regular sandpaper the adhesive can be very water-soluble and the paper itself will just fall apart if dampened (note: with water). <S> Now you didn't ask about this <S> but I would recommend you not go with sharpening on abrasive paper. <S> Inexpensive diamond plates and oilstones are available and one or both are a much better intro to sharpening and far far better value, not just in the long term but even initially since high-grit paper can be fairly pricey. <S> And as the final step I always recommend stropping and always with a homemade strop... <S> woodworkers who buy strops should hand in their woodworking cards :-) <S> As Paul Sellers explains and demonstrates stropping gives that final refinement to your edges in a fast, economical and user-friendly manner. <S> It makes the difference between a sharp edge and a really keen edge in older parlance. <A> When polishing metals, it is quite common to use very fine grit (high grit count) sandpaper. <S> I use it frequently. <S> It's also recommended to use up to 1500 grit sandpaper when preparing certain wood surfaces prior to oiling with certain products – I did it recently with some Oregon when using a citrus oil and it was smooth as a baby's bottom afterwards (and it smelled amazing too)! <S> With 2000 grit wet/dry plus metal polisher I have managed to get mild steel to basically look like a mirror. <S> Doing that will give you a workout, I can tell you that. <S> It makes polishing aluminium a breeze. <S> Think of the way you use a cleaning or polishing product with a cloth, this is literally how it works. <S> Wet/Dry sandpaper often is a bit more expensive as the paper ground is tolerant (i.e. it has something of a resist) to the wetness. <S> Technically the misnomer is the word 'sandpaper': <S> Wet/Dry is not traditional glass/sand beaded paper normally used on wood but a very fine carborundum grit paper. <S> Because the majority market for these fine grit papers is for (metal) polishing where an abrasive compound can make a huge difference, this is why pretty much all very fine sandpaper is Wet/Dry. <S> But you can easily get 500 grit paper in the other standard paper substrates at most home improvement/building stores. <S> Check this quick video out <S> which as an example: How to polish a dirt bike frame But the video by Paul Sellers is much more instructive, he just takes it as a given that you know what wet/dry 'sandpaper' is. <A> Wet /dry is really a specification of how the paper has been fabricated and in particular what kind of adhesive. <S> Wet paper uses a waterproof adhesive, and a waterproof backing which allows for continuous usage with water. <S> The advantage of wet sanding is to clean the area up <S> so the surface is not scratched by the debris build up, as well as keeping the paper clean ... <S> other wise it would clog. <S> Wet paper can also be used with solvents, for some time at least, until the adhesive is dissolved. <S> Dry paper is just that, paper and it takes about 5 seconds to turn it into gritty sticky mush, when wet with water or solvents.. <S> the higher grit ratings are for finer and finer surface sanding with water. <S> I have 24 grit <S> Wet paper and trimkuts for the 4 1/2 inch angle grinder. <S> the grit does not matter with the Wet Dry or Dry types.
| Wet/Dry sandpaper is not an oxymoron, it literally means one can use the paper as-is (i.e. 'dry') or with some abrasive/'polishing' liquid such as Brasso (i.e. 'wet').
|
How can I chamfer thick (1.5") material? I'd like to add a 22.5 degree chamfer to thick (1.5"+) material. In the past I've done small chamfers on a router table with a chamfer bit. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any chamfer bits that are big enough to cut 1.5". What's a good way to go about this. I suppose it doesn't have to be exactly 22.5 degrees (for aesthetic purposes only), but I do want it repeatable and uniform (e.g. 20 degrees along the entire edge is fine). Is there a way to use a shorter router bit that I'm not seeing? Are there other tools for the job? Should I start with a short chamfer and start planing the material down? Edit: The work piece is a 1.5" tall cylinder with outer diameter of 10" and inner diameter of 6" (e.g. 2" wall thickness). I'd like to chamfer both the inside and outside edges. Edit2: I decided to "cheat". A friend has a CNC router so I just ran it on that. Took forever and had a few gcode errors, but came out well enough. <Q> Planing by hand would be the standard response for any hand-tool aficionado, as this is how chamfers were done before power tools came along. <S> This can be done freehand, by planing to marked or gauged lines on the face and edges, but it's easier to use some kind of chamfering jig if accuracy and repeatability are desired. <S> Because I'm presuming you'll want to do four sides of something you're going to need to go cross-grain and planing a significant length and width of end grain by hand <S> can be a bear, even if you have the right type of plane. <S> So at least for those ends I'd suggest you use some kind of power tool to remove all or most of the material, then clean up taking very light passes with a block plane, with a card scraper, or just by sanding. <S> My thoughts on suitable power tools were in rough order: table saw, bandsaw and belt sander. <S> With the table saw the blade can obviously be tilted to 22.5 <S> ° <S> and then it's just a straightforward saw cut. <S> With the bandsaw, if the bed can't be tilted to the required angle then an angled bed can be built from plywood or MDF. <S> But obviously if you're doing the chamfers on the edges of a large workpiece manoeuvring it safely could be impossible. <S> The belt sander I thought could be used in one of two ways: either freehanding it (just to hog off most of the material) or by setting the sander upside down, tilted to the correct angle and then the workpiece could be slid past it, face side down, almost like you were using a jointer. <S> If a sliding jig is rigged up and the sander fixed firmly in place <S> I think this could give very accurate results. <A> For something that big, I would use a table saw to make the main cut, and then use a belt/orbit sander to smooth it out nice. <S> If you are good with a hand plane then you might leave a little to be planed off with a hand plane. <S> That much is a lot and using a bigger tool is the better way to go. <A> Based on your edit and comments, it sounds like you want to chamfer the inside and outside circumferences of a short but large diameter hollow cylinder <S> so each end of the cylinder comes to a point <S> , so you end up with a toroid with a rhombus/diamond-shaped cross-section. <S> In that case, I think a lathe would do a great job. <A> Given your further description: Trying to chamfer a 1.5" thick circular piece with a circular cut out from the inside. <S> I'd like to chamfer both the outside and inside edge of the resulting 1.5" tall cylinder. <S> I'd suggest getting a milling bit - such as it used for metal or wood CNC machines - and chuck it into your table router at an angle. <S> You'll have to develop a jig for the part you're chamfering to obtain a very round result. <S> Clamping it to a board with a nail hole in the center, and rotating it around that center while routing seems the easiest. <S> If your router doesn't tilt add a wedge below it and incorporate that into your jig. <S> Alternately, use a hand router and a wedge, attached to a length of board with a nail at the center of the project part. <S> Then move the router around the part. <S> You can also use a jigsaw in a similar manner without buying the milling bit, but the blade might wander. <S> Doing this with a table saw is possible, but seems a bit more risky than a router. <A> Another idea would be to use a shaper. <S> A shaper is very similar to a router table except that it is meant for bigger cuts. <S> You can buy a chamfer cutter that would handle you 22.5 degree cut for 1.5 inch thick stock. <S> A quick search turned up this result: Chamfer Shaper Cutter
| Another option would be to use a trim router with an angled base, spiral bit, and template and/or jig.
|
Body positioning while using a jointer I just got a old Beaver 4" jointer that looks very similar to this one. I used it for the first time this weekend and it was awesome. I am wondering though if I was doing something inherently wrong while operating. I was processing some pallet boards which were 4' to 8' long and since some were so long I found myself walking along the jointer with the board to keep it flush against the base and fence. I thought that maybe I was supposed to feed from behind but that didn't make sense as I would not be able to maintain downward pressure as the board passed over the cutter. How should my body be positioned while operating a jointer? <Q> You should put downward pressure on the infeed table when starting the cut and on the outfeed table when ending the cut, but there are two schools of thought for what happens in the middle. <S> Some keep pressure on the infeed table and others keep pressure on the outfeed table. <S> Personally, I think it makes more sense to put down pressure on the outfeed table, but I have woodworker friends who do the opposite and produce much nicer work than anything I've ever made. <S> As long as you stick to one or the other, you should get a good result (except perhaps at the very ends), even if your infeed and outfeed tables are ever-so-slightly out of parallel. <S> As Doresoom mentioned, you should use push pads. <S> Ideally you should never pass your hands over the cutterhead, even if you are using push pads, but this can be very awkward at first, and at least one of the more famous instructional Internet woodworkers walks along with his workpiece and passes his hands right over the cutterhead (with push pads, of course). <S> You can use featherboards for face jointing, but most jointer fences are not tall enough to use featherboards for downward pressure when edge jointing wide boards. <A> I don't own a jointer myself, but I watched my dad use his for years, and he always used a pair of flat push blocks with handles and rubber pads on the bottom for friction. <S> Using this type of push block will allow you to safely maintain downward pressure on the work piece while it's over the cutter head. <S> You may also want to use a variation of this with a cleat for your trailing hand to allow a better grip for forward feed pressure. <S> If you decide not use push blocks, at least make sure to keep your hands away from the leading edge of the board when it's only a few inches onto the outfeed table. <S> A sudden kickback with your hand in that position could lead to it getting drawn into the cutter head. <S> As for safe operating position, stand to the side of the jointer, and stay out of the kickback danger zone behind the machine directly in line with the cutter head. <S> This old Shopsmith pamphlet (PDF) has a bunch of good tips on safe jointer use, although some are specific to the particular model. <S> Be especially careful in your inspection of the lumber for nails and staples if you're using pallet boards or reclaimed lumber. <S> These can damage the knives and cause some serious kickback. <S> If you're not too squeamish, here's a good resource (PDF) with a lot of jointer accident and close-call descriptions. <S> I find learning from others' mistakes (and missing digits) helps me keep all of my fingers intact. <A> Position yourself centered in front of the cutterhead and use both hands to keep pressure over the cutterhead; as one hand passes, replace the other hand to continue pushing. <S> Do not leave hands near either end of the stock being jointed. <S> Personally, I've never used a push stick or push block but perhaps I should start considering the document Doresoom linked. <S> I've never had kickback or other accidents on my jointer but one time would be enough to turn my hands into hamburger. <S> On a related note, make sure your outfeed table is adjusted so that the cutter just kisses a board parallel to the table. <S> While your post was about body positioning, how you align the stock matters too, both for safety and for quality of cut. <S> This prevents tearout Ensure your outfeed table is properly adjusted <S> : Lower the outfeed slightly. <S> Feed a piece of scrap through until you have a lip projecting over your outfeed. <S> Shut off your machine, then raise the outfeed until it just touches the bottom of your cut portion and lock the table. <S> Joint the face first, then use that flat face against the fence to joint an edge. <S> For edge joining, each board has a good face. <S> Joint one board with the good face away from the fence and the other board with the good face against the fence, this will ensure that even if your fence isn't perfectly square, the boards will join perfectly (supplementary angles. <S> Go go gadget geometry!). <S> If your board has a cup, joint the concave side down, then use a planer to remove the convex portion. <S> A jointer is a fantastic tool to have in the shop, congratulations on your new dangerous toy!
| Because you're usually working with longer pieces, push sticks and push shoes might not work as well on a jointer as they might on a table saw, though I suspect Matthias Wandel might still use push sticks on a jointer. In terms of safety, you should try to keep your hands at least 6" away from the cutterhead at all times, which also means you shouldn't joint anything shorter than about 18-24". Most woodworkers I know, including myself, walk along with the board when jointing, to some extent; but for long boards they stay in one place either at the infeed or outfeed side and use the push pads hand-over-hand to "walk" the board across. Here are some tips from Wood Magazine: Joint with the grain sloping down, toward the infeed table and away from the outfeed table.
|
How do I clamp box joints? When making box joints, per a number of articles I've read, I've left the fingers a touch longer than the thickness of the board. So if I'm making joints on 1/4" plywood, my fingers might be 5/16" long, and then I just sand them down at the end. Some authors (Matthias Wandel as an example) even suggest cutting the fingers with a table saw. An issue I'm encountering with these is that it becomes difficult to clamp the joint tight, since a clamp ends up pressing on the extension of the fingers sticking out, not the second board you are trying to clamp. I tried clamping a square to inside of the joint, which works well for keeping the joint square, but doesn't seem to apply enough pressure to pull the fingers tightly together. Is making the fingers a tad longer poor advice, or is there another way to clamp this type of joint? I had considered making a jig with fingers and just a small amount of wood, but with 1/4" plywood, and only 1/16" excess material, it seems unlikely this would stay in place with clamping pressure. <Q> With the clamps there, you will still be pulling the joint closed while introducing relatively no bending to the boards. <S> Picture below <S> (source: RodsWoodworking.com ). <S> You could, as you suggested, make some jig with matching fingers that interlace with the box joint, giving you bearing on the portion of the joint you're trying to press. <S> This can be rather tedious though, since you need to make a minimum of eight (two per corner) to properly clamp a box, possible more depending how deep the box is. <S> As suggested by @keshlam, you can buy box joint cauls that serve this purpose. <S> Another way I've seen is to use offset blocks (or cauls) and then clamp around the entire assembly using ratchet straps. <S> This is illustrated in the picture below (source: LumberJocks ). <S> Per the suggestion of @keshlam, it's prudent to coat wooden cauls with packaging tape (or another surface that glue will not stick to) so that they don't become part of your box inadvertently. <S> Also, you might try lining the very edge of your joint with blue tape to catch any squeezeout, similar to the image below <S> (source: StartWoodworking.com ) <A> I tried clamping a square to inside of the joint, which works well for keeping the joint square, but doesn't seem to apply enough pressure to pull the fingers tightly together. <S> I think that's basically the right idea but could do with being implemented differently: <S> [Source: Wood Magazine] <S> Another option that you might like to consider is something similar to this: As you can see the clamping blocks themselves support the thin stock and work simultaneously to keep it straight while providing the necessary clamping action to squeeze the joint firmly. <S> Is making the fingers a tad longer poor advice <S> I wasn't familiar with this prior to your question <S> but I think I can see why this might be advisable in some situations. <S> I would however recommend that you not do this if your cuts don't result in unacceptable amounts of chipout, as it saves on later work while simultaneously makes clamping more straightforward during the assembly phase. <A> Try this setup. <S> Green is jig. <S> Red is where clamps go. <A> I wanted to elaborate a little bit on what grfrazee touched on with his answer . <S> Gluing cauls or "Matching Finger" cauls could be a great idea. <S> Indeed, as you have read, some instructions/teachers will advise to let the pins protrude the surface. <S> This can make it easier to create a flush surface after but it can also be used as an aesthetic! <S> If they were rounded off for instance. <S> Making these cauls could be considered a waste of time and wood on just one project. <S> However, if you tend to make the same dimensions of finger joints, or even dovetails, you can still get good use out of cauls. <S> They are simple and if created properly almost guarantee that pressure is being applied in the correct position. <S> Risk is usually minimal just outside the joint <S> but if being square is essential it would not hurt to consider. <S> There is another great video from <S> The Woodright's Shop called "Pinch Rods and Squeezy Blocks". <S> The latter being the name of how Roy Underhill's refers to his gluing cauls. <S> A picture below show his dovetail "squeezy block" which took less than a minute to make using a chisel and one of the cut boards as a rough guide. <S> There are other examples as well like the ones from a Craftsy.com blog post <S> Like grfrazee said This can be rather tedious though, since you need to make a minimum of eight (two per corner) to properly clamp a box, possible more depending how deep the box is <S> But they are not really hard to make and if you can use them again then why not. <S> From the Crafty.com post <S> It’s worth the 20 minutes it takes to make these. <S> As a bonus that same video show how to use (and make) pinch rods to use to make sure your box is square!
| For clamping box joints, I've found that offsetting the clamps just to the inside of the fingers ensures you will be able to pull the corners tight.
|
Wood to Use for 3ft Sorority Letters I am currently trying to build 3ft wooden letters for my sorority's recruitment booth. I want them to be sturdy and weather resistant but also lightweight and portable. The letters will be in storage for most of the year only coming out when we have recruitment activities at the beginning of each quarter. I was wondering what is the best kind of wood and thickness to use for this project. I have a bit of experience in wood working but this is my first time undertaking a project of my own. Right now this project is just in the planning stages. I need to propose a budget before I can move forward and make more solid designs but I am looking to create letters that look similar to this photo: Our letters are Lambda Sigma Gamma. I will also need to make stands for the letters, especially the Gamma. <Q> The plywood you want will be labeled as being for "outdoor use," which is treated to be rot resistant. <S> It is easily worked and paintable/sandable. <S> If you want to leave wood exposed rather than painting, then you can use a higher grade plywood which has a top veneer of high quality material; this is commonly used in furniture. <S> The thickness for something that isn't taking any kind of load is really up to your opinion regarding the aesthetics of the thing. <S> You can use plywood for the stands as well. <S> Using dimensional lumber for a project like this would require jointing the lumber together and cutting it to a curved shape unless you wan to use greek "block" letters. <S> If this will be used outdoors, particularly in wet weather, you'll want to apply an outdoor finish or paint to your letters, even if the wood is rated for exterior use. <S> Frankly you may not find exterior rated plywood with a high grade, since it's typically used in applications where the plywood is a backing for something else (e.g. shingles). <S> If this is the case, it's even more important to apply judicious layers of outdoor finish to protect your project. <S> Indoor plywood typically doesn't use waterproof glues between layers and moisture may cause it to split. <A> If you're looking for weather-resistant and lightweight, you can't do much better than cedar for the wood choice. <S> Cedar also has a good strength-to-weight ratio, making it very sturdy. <S> For thickness, using 2x material (i.e., 2x4, 2x6, 2x8, etc.) is probably ok given your letter sizes. <S> Bear in mind that cedar usually has somewhat of a premium in price over other woods you'd get at a big box store. <S> A bit less expensive of an option would be pressure-treated dimensional pine boards, which also come in 2x thickness. <S> These will be heavier than the cedar but should have similar weather-resistance and sturdiness at a lower cost. <S> Based on the link you provided, you might be looking at using plywood for the letters. <S> Pressure-treated (exterior-grade) plywood is available, which will fit the weather-resistance bill. <S> However, I would advise backing the plywood with a frame of 2x material to keep it from bending when wet. <S> You state that these are going to be used for your recruitment booth. <S> Are they going to be kept outside for long term (i.e., months or years)? <S> If so, you'll want to consider using a waterproof glue such as Titebond III and/or coated deck screws for assembly. <S> This will ensure that it stays together for the long haul as compared to less robust glue and fasteners. <A> The other answers are helpful for explaining what types of wood to use for the environment but fail to take into consideration how you are going to construct the letters. <S> The simplest way I can think of would be trace the outlines of the letters onto plywood sheets and cut them out with a jig saw. <S> If you use non-engineered boards of wood, either dimension framing/decking lumber (2x4, 2x6, etc.) <S> or lumber you have milled to dimension, you're going to be dealing with wood that isn't very wide on average. <S> This means that you're going to be joining (glue, screws, etc.) <S> boards together and cutting all sorts of angled cuts, likely requiring multiple types of saws. <S> It will also require a lot more finishing. <S> While doable, this is significantly more complicated and is unlikely to be as durable as a single board. <S> Similar to cedar, there are composite deck products that are not wood but can be worked with like wood. <S> They will not rot, expand/contract, twist or deform and are water proof. <A> Are they going to be painted in a solid colour or bare/stained wood? <S> This is super easy to cut and machine and very durable once painted. <S> The place where I work uses Medite exterior-grade MDF for a lot of (painted) exterior board components.
| Plywood is designed specifically to resist warping and to be stronger than solid wood of the same dimensions due to the properties of lamination. If painted then most signmakers these days seem to use moisture resistant MDF (medium density fibreboard).
|
What is wood stabilization? Not much meat to this question. What is wood stabilization and why would I want to do it? It think it has to do with turning but are there other reasons that I would want to do it. This question is based on a comment from this answer : It's worth noting that you can stabilize punky spalted wood - grfrazee <Q> In turning, stabilization may mean anything from filling cracks with epoxy, to impregnating the wood with resin . <S> More generally, you can stabilize a crack with a butterfly inlay or you can again use epoxy or some other filler. <S> In the case of turning, the purpose of stabilizing the wood is to strengthen it against cracking and shattering while working on the piece. <S> In other cases, you may want to showcase a crack (or other "defect") as part of your piece's character, but you want to prevent the crack from spreading further, possibly to the point of causing the piece to break or fail. <S> For example, butterfly/bowtie inlays are commonly used to stabilize cracks in large wooden tabletops. <A> When talking about stability, it is necessary to distinguish between structural stability and dimensional stability . <S> The means for reinforcing spalted wood (plastic resins, butterfly inserts, etc) fall within the realm of establishing structural stability. <S> During the 1970's a chemical means of maintaining dimensional stability using a warm solution of polyethylene glycol (PEG) became popular. <S> Brought to the world's attention by the US Forest Products Laboratory in 1959, the process is basically to soak the wood in water for a couple of days then submerge it in a heated solution of PEG and water for a few or several days. <S> This causes naturally occurring moisture to be displaced by the PEG and to no longer be subject to the vagaries of dimensional changes brought on by changes in humidity without seriously affecting workability and structure. <S> It is most appropriately used for turnings, carvings and other projects that employ thicker wood that might balk at conventional drying processes. <S> PEG is not a panacea and PEG treated wood has its problems, specifically, gluing, finishing, and corrosiveness. <S> Its waxy finish resists some glues, but there are viable work-arounds. <S> Polyurethane and Danish oils work well as finishes, but traditional varnish and lacquers should be avoided. <S> PEG is corrosive to most metals except stainless steel, so fasteners and attachments should be carefully considered. <S> PEG is not good for all hardwoods (hard maple, cherry), but is especially friendly to walnut. <S> There are several suppliers of PEG (A search for "PEG wood" will set you on the right track). <S> This search will also lead you to specific instructions for time, temperature, concentrations which vary depending on the source. <S> A comprehensive, but dated, discussion of how and when to use PEG is found in this article from Oregon State University . <A> When woodworkers talk about "stability" they are referring to the tendency of the wood to change shape. <S> "Stablizing" wood means doing something to it that would prevent it from changing shape. <S> Normally the biggest cause of instability is a loss (or gain) of moisture, causing part of the wood to shrink (or expand). <S> This can lead to warping or twisting. <A> Aside from stabilizing wood through chemical means- petrifier, glues, epoxy, etc. or mechanical means- butterflies, other wood or metal fasteners... <S> When I ponder wood stabilization <S> my mind goes to, and stays at, moisture content (mc). <S> Stable wood, to me, means ensuring there is as little difference as possible in the percentage of moisture between the surface, core, and everywhere in between. <S> The overall amount of water isn't as important as the consistency of the water throughout. <S> All seasonal movement is directly related to the amount of moisture in a board AND the varying degrees of difference within. <S> When the surface mc and the core mc differs by more than just a little, this is called "case hardening" If you have ever ripped a board and had it pinch the blade (scary,right?) or have the two pieces coming out like bananas in opposing curves (sometimes twisting so badly <S> the piece becomes firewood)- <S> you have experienced case hardening. <S> Splitting the board relieves some of the unequal tensions between the cells of the unevenly dry board (the drier cells are tighter and pulling together and the wetter ones larger and pushing). <S> Then a new type of tension is created within each of the new boards. <S> Drying kilns combat case hardening by injecting steam into the kiln at the end of the drying process to equalize the surface mc and the core mc as much as possible. <S> Impossible as it is to make 100% even mc across any board, this gets it close to the consistency of a multi-year air dry. <S> This is why, even when using equalized wood, you must mill your parts oversize- <S> then work them back to square and true to their final size. <S> I have heard that some people will take a board they are about to mill down to final size and drop/throw on the floor in an effort to "pre-relieve" the board of some internal tensions... <S> maybe works? <S> As a cabinet maker I am less concerned with whether my material has a total mc of 8% or 13%, than how much the content varies within each rough board prior to milling into smaller final sizes. <S> Also, how much the mc varies board to board within the unit of boards.
| Wood stabilization typically refers to reinforcing wood against inherent defects or weaknesses.
|
Improve Grip on Shavehorse This weekend I was using my shavehorse to make some wooden spatulas. After a while, the head started losing grip on the pieces I was working. To help improve the grip, I wrapped a piece of leather around the top crossbar and tacked it into place. While I don't have a picture of this, you can see the crossbar above the platform in the image below. Adding the leather seemed to help a bit, but the issue still remained. Looking a little closer, I noticed that the surface of the platform was getting burnished, which would explain why it was so slippery. At this point I was out of time to work on stuff, so I set it aside. I could add another piece of leather to the platform, which would probably help with grip. However, I'm curious if there are any other ways that I might increase the grip of my shavehorse . <Q> To help improve the grip, I wrapped a piece of leather around the top crossbar and tacked it into place. ... <S> Adding the leather seemed to help a bit, but the issue still remained. <S> I suspect that the leather is one or both of the following, 1, too thin, 2, too smooth (much modern leather has a glazed surface and not inherently suited to this application). <S> You could try using the flesh side of the leather you have, but in addition or instead of this I think you should pad the leather from the back so that it can deform around the workpiece more and that will improve the grip substantially. <S> I'm curious if there are any other ways that I might increase the grip of my shavehorse. <S> Push with your legs harder. <S> It sounds too simple but this is precisely the mechanism that the shavehorse/shaving mule is designed to take advantage of. <S> This should sort of happen naturally as you work the wood so it may indicate you're sitting a little further back on the bench than is ideal, so that your legs are initially more extended than they should be. <A> More long lasting my be to put a coat of rubber cement on t and let it dry. <S> something like piece of innertube might work well <A> Classic solution for modern jigs and pushsticks is to apply self-adhesive sandpaper to the gripping surface. <S> Various high-friction rubber materials are also used. <S> Not sure what would be best "in period"... <A> It may just be the perspective or the setup of the photo, but it appears to me that your shave horse is not adjusted quite right. <S> When you push on the footrest, the swinging arm should not have to travel very far past vertical, and the grip should not be able to swing closer to you than the platform. <S> In your comment, you also mentioned raising the pivot, and that would be even better than simply lowering the grip. <S> Either of these adjustments to the pivot will give you significantly more hold-down pressure without having to exert more force on the footrest. <S> As you might recall from grade school or high school, your mechanical advantage with a lever is the ratio of the lengths on either side of the pivot. <S> So if the footrest is 24" and the grip is 12" from the pivot, you have a 2:1 mechanical advantage. <S> If you bring the grip down to 8" from the pivot, you now have a 24:8, or 3:1 mechanical advantage. <S> If you instead raise the pivot by 4", your mechanical advantage is 28:8, or 3.5:1 (i.e., 3.5). <S> Raising the pivot point even higher will amplify your hold-down pressure even more. <S> One final suggestion: make sure your platform is not too smooth. <S> It shouldn't be necessary to add friction material; but if you do, add it to the platform that the workpiece rests upon, rather than adding it to the grip (top crossbar). <A> Sharpen your drawknife. <S> This isn't a complete solution, but if you look at the question as "how can I reduce the required gripping force" instead of "how can I generate more gripping force," the obvious answer is to make sure that your tools are as sharp as possible. <A> I don't have and never used a horse <S> but I have seen many in use and done some previous research. <S> Leading with my weak suggestion you could use grip tape on either or both sides of the table and clamp/hold. <S> That would have the same effect as sand paper on the work piece <S> so might not be desirable. <S> It should however last longer. <S> Perhaps you just need to increase the surface area that touches the work piece. <S> Other bodger-style horses that I have seen have a larger a larger block that the work sits on. <S> If that same block was angled that might help get more of a grip as well. <S> Another suggestion would be to change the head out for a heavier wood and let gravity help you. <S> You are correct in your comment: the majority of the gripping force comes from the leverage of one's feet on the swinging arm <S> But I think the strength of the lever and head and the joint that connects then would make it so you could add more pressure. <S> I'm surprised the leather did not help.
| You should either use a taller platform or, better yet, you should move the grip further down on the swinging arm (with your shave horse, this will mean adding more holes). A different approach might be to glue a rubber mat on it. Of course my first suggestion would be to use a little sand paper, that is a quick and easy solution.
|
Cleaning tools after working green wood Still at the cottage and trying to make a bow saw out of some green poplar. There was a comment on my last question about being sure that I cleaned my tools after working green wood. Specifically there was a comment about being sure to use oil on the tools. I don't know if it matters what kind of oil or how it should be applied and removed. What do I do with my tools after they worked green wood? <Q> Mind the edges when you're doing do, both from rubbing too much grit in them an dulling them and being careful not to cut yourself. <S> After that, I use whatever oil is handy. <S> Usually this is 3-in-1 oil, but occasionally paste wax, beeswax, air tool oil, boiled linseed oil, Boeshield, or even tallow of some sort find their way into being used. <S> Just wipe on a thin layer <S> and it should be ok. <S> Really all you want to do is put some sort of film that prevents oxidation of the surface rust, so any sort of hydrophobic material is adequate. <S> Some may last longer than others (like the thick, goopy layer of cosmoline I've found on new old stock firearms compared to a coat of WD-40, but we all know which would be preferable for coating an often-used tool). <A> The big problem with green wood is moisture. <S> it has lots of water and of course iron tools don't like that. <S> Some wood has pitch which of course sticks to to tools and can be cleaned with a solvent like paint thinner. <S> Some saps are also mildly corrosive <S> so, my recommendation would generally be to wipe down the tools <S> dry them up and put a light oil on them. <S> It could be something as simple as spraying them down with WD-40. <S> They won't need a lot. <A> Any WD-40 there? <S> That's a great product to use for this application as it will do <S> two desired things simultaneously: acts as a solvent for any resins or gums left on the surface and drives out water. <S> WD-40 is an acceptable rust-preventative for the short term <S> but if you want better protection wipe on a coat of nearly any available oil or grease. <S> Literally almost everything other than butter is fine* including all cooking oils or salad oils, lard, vegetable shortening, mineral oil, baby oil (also mineral oil, just scented) or petroleum jelly. <S> TBH <S> I don't think you need to be overly worried about this though. <S> I've worked with wettish wood a few times recently <S> (not green, just still damp from being waterlogged) <S> and I haven't had any problems with rusting. <S> Any tools that don't have stainless steel blades would have been greased or waxed at some point previously and after use I just wiped clean with paper towels and stored them, without incident. <S> *Butter contains a surprising amount of water, >15% in the US. <A> I find that the mositure in greewood spurs rust really quickly. <S> I use jojoba oil <S> https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/tool-care/tool-care-jojoba-oil-?node=4117 on my tools at the end of each day if they have touched green wood.
| Simply, wipe any dirt, grime, and possibly pitch off the tool surfaces (you can use water or another solvent if it's really stubborn) and dry thoroughly.
|
Does the speed of sanding a piece of wood affect the end result? Does the speed of sanding a piece of wood affect the end result? In particular, what is the point of having a dual speed random orbital sander? <Q> But many of the lower-end or homeowner-grade random orbit sanders aren't aggressive enough for it to matter. <S> As with many tools, lower speeds on a sander offer more control, so you may avoid rounding off corners or having the sander skip or jump and gouge the material (particularly if you're using a more aggressive sander). <S> Some tools have sanding attachments which only work well at lower speeds. <S> For example, if you use an oscillating multi-tool for sanding at the tool's higher speeds, the hooks for the hook-and-loop backing pad will melt, rendering the attachment useless. <A> Variable speed sanders are most useful for heat sensitive materials, which wood is not. <S> (At least not to the range of temperatures that sanding will generally expose it too!) <S> A variable speed sander can help control the amount of material removed if you're just trying to make a light pass though. <A> Actual scorching of wood is possible with a belt sander running at a high enough speed and with the wood held tightly against the belt (particularly a problem with worn belts). <S> That's the most obvious 'effect' resulting from speed that I can think of sanding wood itself <S> and it's a flaw in sanding technique and not directly a fault of the sander. <S> But other than that the sanded surface created with grit X is the same whether achieved at high or low speed — the scratch pattern is identical as far as I can tell. <S> Re. random-orbit sanders though I would expect that a slower speed would be offered for two reasons: to help reduce the tendency towards corning (see previous Question ) with resinous woods and when sanding finish, but primarily to help make sanding more controllable, e.g <S> when sanding thin veneers, near edges or corners, or when sanding a finish. <S> There are multiple issues sanding finish, the most obvious being that it's very easy to inadvertently sand through to the bare wood, but also many finishes are heat-sensitive so higher sanding speeds can sort of melt their surface, leading to corning as well as a sub-par sanded finish. <A> In addition to the other comments: sanding produces heat. <S> Depending on what you're doing, it may be possible to produce enough heat to affect the wood's color, "burning" the surface a bit. <S> That's more likely with cutting tools, but a really aggressive sander could do it. <S> But, yeah, mostly it's a matter of getting the job done quickly traded off against the risk of losing control and taking more than you intended or sanding irregularly.
| A lower speed can be desirable if you're sanding between thin coats of finish or thin veneers, and you don't want to sand through the current coat or the veneer.
|
How can I turn a couple of logs into stubby legs for a outdoor tree round table? I want to create legs for an outdoor cedar tree round table. I'd like the table top to be 18" to maybe 20" high. How might I securely attach these legs to the tree round? The tree round is 4' in diameter, and roughly 14" thick. So it's already 14" high. I am turning this into an outdoor table to put under a covered area. I also have four cedar logs from 8" to 12" in diameter. I was thinking that I would cut the logs into short round legs, just striping the bark and chopping them off at 4" or 6" tall. The idea was that they that would stand on their own, I would position them appropriately and then set the tree round table top on top of these. A table. It has since been pointed out, that if the table were to fall off its legs, even at 4" or 6", it might hurt someone. Related Questions: tree round checking (1)... center rot (2)... and Original Post too long: build a table ... <Q> Hrmm, my first thought would be to drill a couple of 2" holes in the 'legs' and the underside of the 'top' and make some 2" dowels to connect the two, but I'd wonder if as these things dry whether or not that would crack. <S> Another option would be to take a sheet of 3/4" exterior grade plywood, lay ot over the bottom of the table 'top', trace it, then grab a compass and set it for a couple inches, and scribe the the profile a couple of inches back toward the center. <S> Then use a jigsaw to trim the plywood to this smaller size. <S> Use the plywood as a stand-in to mount the legs to with lots of wood screws, then set the 'top' over this base, and screw from the bottom up using the same screws (say 3" wood screws, not drywall screws.) <S> Oh, and I'd defintiely cut the center of the plywood to keep from creating a pocket where water could collect. <A> I would certainly drill holes into the 'legs' and into the underside of the table and use a dowel to keep them lined up. <S> I would glue the dowel into the legs but not the top <S> since if you want to move it you might want to take it apart. <S> Last, since people are unlikely to crawl under the low table, take the brackets from the last and actually attach them to the inside of the log leg. <S> then the whole thing is one piece but can be easily disassembled to move it elsewhere. <A> The weight of that top would certainly be a necessity for caution. <S> Logs connected in a triangle If you were going to just use the logs more or less as is you could carve out large recesses for the logs that the table would then sit on. <S> If you then also had spars or stretchers connected firmly to each of the legs (3 seems like a good number) that would make it harder for the table to topple. <S> I tempted to say that the sheer weight alone on this triangle of logs and stretchers would reduce the risk of injury to null <S> but I wont the safety of other on it. <S> Casters? <S> The height increase you are looking for could come from some heavy duty casters. <S> (source: xc-hp.com ) <S> Not that one specifically but something of the sort. <S> When purchasing pay attention to the weight specification of the casters. <S> Getting at least 4 could be pricey depending but at least then you could move the table. <A> You could consider splitting the legs into small pieces. <S> You an axe or a froe. <S> These smaller pieces will dry faster than the bigger log. <S> Since they are split they will hold a lot of strength. <S> In a while maybe a month - chop them down into tapered pieces with an axe. <S> Drill a fairly large hole, something like an inch and half into the table and than insert the base. <S> As the table top dries it will shrink over the legs and hold them really snugly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_wfWGgaxnw
| Another option would be to bolt L-brackets onto the bottom of the table and once again have holes in the legs and just 'set' the down bracket into the holes.
|
How to oil/treat a solid beech table top that will be used as a computer desk? I just got a GERTON table top which is made of solid beech. In the instruction they says: Apply a thin coat of BEHANDLA wood treatment oil . Leave the oil to penetrate the wood for about 2 hours. Wipe off surplus oil with a cloth or kitchen paper. During the first week of use the table top should be treated every second day and after that every third day until the surface is saturated (after about 2 months). Then treat the surface as required. But in the BEHANDLA instructions they say: Apply BEHANDLA with brush or pad in a thin, even film. Leave to penetrate the surface for approx. 15 minutes. Wipe off any unabsorbed oil with a soft cloth. Let the surface dry and repeat the oil treatment 1-3 times in accordance with the absorbency of the wood. I will solely use the table as a computer desk. My question is, which set of instruction should I follow? Also, is there another (better) alternative for my use? The color of the table top is fine as is and I prefer matte surface finish over glossy finish. <Q> It has the matte surface that you are looking for and if it gets any dings or scratches, a little sanding will get rid of them and a quick recoat of the surface gets it looking as good as new in minutes. <A> Boiled linseed oil is easy to apply, has a matte finish that you prefer, and will soak into the wood with repeated applications. <S> For something more durable, but still natural, go with Danish oil. <S> But that will build up a more glossy coat with more applications.i think I read somewhere that the Ikea oil is a camelia oil, which is foodsafe, but that wouldn't be necessary for this desk. <A> I will solely use the table as a computer desk. <S> By this, I will assume you have no need for a food-safe finish. <S> The BEHANDLA oil appears to be little more than boiled linseed oil (BLO) per IKEA's product description page: <S> Product description Linseed oil, Wood treatment oil, <S> Lead free drying agent, Emulsifier BLO is a non-food-safe grade of flax seed oil (or conversely, flax seed oil is just food-safe BLO). <S> When I apply BLO, I generally pour some onto the surface and spread it around with a rag to a generally even coat. <S> I continue to do this until the surface doesn't soak in any more of the oil. <S> After wiping off the excess, I'll then use a clean rag to clean up the surface of any remaining oil that the soiled rag missed. <S> Then let the surface sit for an hour or two to make sure nothing else seeps out. <S> If it does, clean it up like <S> you did previously. <S> There would be no issue with following the instructions on the GERTON table top, which has you reapplying every few days for a while until the surface is saturated. <S> However, this is more labor- and time-intensive, and to be honest, you probably won't notice too big of a difference from my instructions above. <S> Note that BLO-soaked rags have a chance of autoignition if left in a pile, so make sure you allow them to dry out flat and away from any fuel sources. <S> Or just chuck them in a fireplace if you're having a fire anyway. <S> Also, is there another (better) alternative for my use? <S> The color of the table top is fine as is <S> and I prefer mat surface finish over glossy finish. <S> If you want a matte finish, BLO is a good way to go. <S> It preserves the color (mostly) of the wood and leaves the tactile finish of the wood the same. <S> Using a film finish will result in that plasticy feel you get on some furniture. <S> Otherwise, if you're looking for a matte finish using a different type of oil/varnish, a matte polyurethane will work, as will Danish oil as @JasonRDalton suggested. <A> For use as a computer desk, I'd go with a polyurethane. <S> Much harder, less likely to gouge or scrape the wood, and you be done in a weekend, provided the weather's not terrible. <S> I'd probably shoot for an oil based poly for hardness, or a water based one if you want to be able to clean up without smelly solvents.
| I would use so-called Danish oil (I have used Watco for decades).
|
How might I make a template to fit the top of my desk? My desk is nearly finished; all that's left is to have the glass top cut. To do this, I need a template to give the glass shop. I can't just give them dimensions since it's not perfectly square. More importantly there are pegs on the frame. The glass is to be "keyed" so that the pegs will keep it from sliding, and I need to ensure that the glass aligns near perfectly with them (perhaps 1mm of play on either side of the pegs). An image of the desk is below. note that the center of the desk is set roughly half an inch below the borders, so simply laying paper down and marking it is somewhat troublesome. How might I go about creating the template? <Q> Geometric solution Using a large compass or trammel <S> , you can precisely gauge all the distances and transfer them to a large template of whatever material you choose (paper, cardboard, hardboard, plywood, etc.). <S> For each point you need to lay out, you just need at least two reference points and the distance from each reference point to the point you're trying to transfer. <S> Place the (center) point of the compass on a reference point on your table and adjust the radius to match the distance to the point you're transferring. <S> Lock in the setting, then move the compass to the corresponding reference point on your large sheet of paper and strike an arc. <S> Repeat for the second (and optionally third) reference point. <S> The point you're transferring will be at the intersection of the two (or more) arcs. <S> Repeat the above steps for as many points as you need to transfer. <S> Note that if you gauge and mark from 3 or more reference points, any error will be apparent because not all the arcs used to transfer that point will intersect at a single point. <S> There are also various other geometric construction techniques you can use to construct regular or irregular shapes using just a compass and/or straightedge . <S> Direct solution <S> That makes creating a template much easier: <S> Cut a piece of cardboard, hardboard, or thin plywood several inches wider than the half the distance between the left and right pairs of pegs. <S> Using a knife and metal rule or straightedge, mark the positions of the pegs. <S> Cut out notches for the pegs. <S> Repeat for the other side. <S> Securely glue or tape the two slightly overlapping sides together. <S> With the template still in place, use a knife and metal straightedge to trim (or mark, if using thicker material) <S> the template to match the outside perimeter (the perhaps slightly out-of-square rectangle that encloses the pegs). <S> If the material was too thick to trim with just the knife, remove the template and use a track saw (or a circular saw with a straightedge guide) to finish trimming the template along the knife marks. <A> Simplest answer may be a large sheet of paper (or several firmly secured to each other), fitted precisely to the space. <S> If assembling, use two overlapping pieces, cut away if necessary, to fit the corners. <S> Make sure it's all well secured <S> so nothing can slide out of position, trap it between two large sheets of cardboard for safe travel, and... Or just get precise measurements of all sides and both diagonals? <S> Should be possible to get the angles from that. <S> You may need to allow for wood movement, if this glass is going to be inset. <S> Strong suggestion <S> : Find a glass shop that has worked with furniture makers before and ask how they'd do it. <A> A variation on the answers above is to make a template like cabinet makers do for counter tops. <S> They will use either strips of 1/4 sheathing/plywood, place them at the perimiter and glue the parts together to make a template. <S> You can locate your holes by cutting an oversize hole at each location and then apply strips of cardboard to exactly define your holes.
| Originally I was thinking you needed to cut square holes in the glass, but after rereading your question it sounds like you just want to notch out the corners of a rectangular sheet of glass. As an alternative , you could get large sheets of poster board, place them to the edges and glue or package tape them together.
|
Joints for a 3/4in-thick pentagon I'm attempting to create a pentagon from 3/4in-thick pine boards, which will become part of a slightly odd shelving unit. Of the five angles, two are 90 degrees and I'm planning to use dowels and glue to connect them. The remaining angles are between 110 and 140 degrees, and I'm looking for some advice how to best join them. Just glue? At those angles, I'm not sure the dowels will do much. Also, any suggestions how to fixate the parts while the glue is solidifying? Update per request: Here's a rough drawing. The plan is to add the middle board after the rest is complete. (And before you ask, the contraption is going to be 1) installed in a nook, 2) screwed to the wall on the left, 3) have a similar, smaller sibling, but flipped horizontally, 4) the sibling will rests on top of the upper-right board with a parallel board on its own, and 5) the sibling will be screwed to the right wall of the nook.) <Q> I'm looking for some advice how to best join them. <S> This will depend mostly on how much load you expect to put on the shelf and how you are mounting the shelf to the wall (if this is a freestanding shelf, don't worry about the mounting part). <S> This is as easy as it sounds - just glue the two faces, press, and wait. <S> The second would be to spline the angle. <S> There are two ways to do this: one with the spline parallel to the width of the joint (source: LumberJocks ) and the other with the splines (also called "keys") across the joint (source: another WW Question ) <S> At those angles, I'm not sure the dowels will do much. <S> You are correct. <S> Not only will the dowels not do much at weird angles, forming the joint will be an exercise in confusion and frustration. <S> Also, any suggestions how to fixate the parts while the glue is solidifying? <S> One simple way to glue weird miters is to wrap the outside of the piece in masking tape and just "roll it up." <S> (source: WorkshopDemos.com ) <S> Otherwise, one could also glue sacrificial clamping blocks to the outer faces such that the faces of the clamping blocks are parallel. <S> Then, the clamps have a straight path to clamp to and will bring the pieces together more easily. <S> (source: Woodworking.com ) <A> My biscuit joiner is able to cut slots at angles which could work for this. <S> Also, depending on the size, the glue might be more than enough to keep everything together. <S> As far as keeping it all together, I've used ratchet straps/tie downs to hold odd-shaped things together for gluing. <S> My sister had a (purposely) odd-shaped dresser with no place for a clamp to hold the broken piece at the correct angle. <S> The ratchet strap not only was able to hold it at the right angle, it didn't mar the wood either! <A> Just glue? <S> At those angles, I'm not sure the dowels will do much. <S> If I'm imagining the construction properly these would still be end grain to end grain joints, which is the weakest glue-only joint. <S> In the right circumstances that can actually be strong enough, but ideally it should be reinforced in some way. <S> So dowels would do a lot here if you wanted to go that way. <S> Also, any suggestions how to fixate the parts while the glue is solidifying? <S> I'm a big fan of the tape method already suggested by grfrazee, when done right <S> it works really well. <S> Another demo of it here on Popular Woodworking , with video and stills images.
| The simplest means would be to to a regular blued butt joint at your angles.
|
How to clean glue brushes I see people using brushes (hair or foam) to spread glue. This is not something I have seen in real life. Without experimenting I have a feeling that spreading glue with a brush might be a good idea, but when the gluing setup is finished and one has time to clean the brush it is already set. So every such gluing would cost a brush. I can of course use a piece of wood or my fingers but the question is: Is the brush wasted if used for gluing? If not, how it is cleaned (water of course)? <Q> Many of the brushes you see people use online to spread glue <S> will actually be disposable. <S> The type I'm thinking of are something like 50c each, and although they can be cleaned and reused they're cheap enough that probably the majority of users are comfortable using each brush once and discarding it. <S> but when the gluing setup is finished and one has time to clean the brush it is already set. <S> Most PVA-type glues have an 'open' time of between 20 minutes and about an hour, depending on local conditions. <S> Even if you're doing a complex glue-up and you can't leave the work to get the brush to a sink for cleaning you could have a jar of water near the workbench to dunk brushes into to stop them from drying out until you've finished clamping up. <S> Once you get to rinsing out the brush <S> it's advisable to use warm water, it really makes quite a bit of difference compared to using cold water; so where available use warm water. <S> After thorough rinsing, washing the brush with soap and water can help remove the last traces of glue although this isn't absolutely needed. <S> While you can use brushes of nearly any kind to apply glue I would recommend you confine yourself to those with synthetic bristles. <S> Synthetic brushes are generally stiffer and easier to control (nothing is worse than trying to spread glue accurately on a joint face using a very soft and bendy brush, I speak from experience!) <S> and their bristles are more forgiving of trace amounts of glue being left in them from incomplete rinsing. <S> In addition to paintbrushes silicone rubber brushes (intended for basting meats or glazing pastry) are used by some woodworkers to apply glue. <S> Although these are great in that hardened glue doesn't stick to them and it can just be peeled off the next day <S> , I don't like them because they're too floppy. <S> But silicone rubber spatulas on the other hand are well worth experimenting with as glue spreaders, they work brilliantly IMO. <A> I very often use cheap (can't get much cheaper than Harbor Freight) <S> acid brushes to spread glue. <S> If the glue happens to be a polyurethane glue, the brush is considered to be disposable - no great cost. <S> If the glue is a PVA glue instead, I'm so cheap that I drop my brushes into a little copper pot (nothing special about copper, it's just what I happen to have) <S> half-full of water. <S> Every couple of days, I pull my glue brushes out & shake the water out of them, then rinse out my little copper pot. <S> The brushes are immediately ready for the next job. <A>
| If your using pva glue when you soak your brush in acetone it dissolves the glue and make you brush fine again
|
Using softwoods for bench tops As most of the regulars know I work with a lot of whitewoods. Pines mostly that come from pallets and what not. I recently made a workbench from an old door but it was hollow inside so I plan on moving it to a lower level and replacing the top with something more solid. Given my availability of 2x4's it would be really easy for me to laminate those and plane the top to make a nice bench top. There are enough people on the "pine /softwoods are terrible for this" bandwagon but I found a blog post from Paul Sellers that comes to their defence for me. I have made benches in the US from every species of softwood with not issues of serviceability. So a good question for here would be are softwoods suitable or practicable for use as bench tops? <Q> So a good question for here would be are softwoods suitable or practicable for use as bench tops? <S> Yes. <S> but this could actually be considered a desirable trait rather than a failing. <S> When woodworking on any very hard table care must be exercised not to accidentally mar the workpiece, especially when doing any work in softwoods or MDF. <S> While with a softwood bench it is the bench that is likely to take the brunt of the damage if the workpiece is dropped on it or bumped against an edge, you could argue this is actually what you want. <S> That issue aside, the view is expressed that a softwood benchtop lacks the necessary toughness or resilience to take heavy use, particularly over a long service life. <S> While it's not an exact parallel some indication that this view is too limited is given by farmhouse tables from Britain, Ireland and the Continent. <S> These were very commonly built from pine and the fact that they often endured immensely long service lives (a century or greater) shows that softwoods can withstand sustained use over many years. <S> And just to show that this isn't merely an intellectual exercise <S> , some vintage and antique softwood benches to prove the point conclusively: <A> I don't see why not. <S> Some of it depends on what kind of abuse you expect it to take and if you expect it to stay 'pretty'. <S> One of my bench tops I made out of 2x6's left over from building the garage. <S> I ran them through the joiner and planner to square them up and it is a very solid bench that can take a lot of abuse. <S> It also happens to be significantly cheaper than using hardwoods to do a similar thing. <S> I know I poke fun at the 'cheap' woods often, <S> but I know they really can be useful for more than just building walls. <S> I know most of us woodworkers would love a solid hardwood topped bench but the hardwood is much more of a 'want' than a 'need'. <A> Interesting question. <S> There are certainly a lot of designs for benches which use medium density fiberboard as their tops (with solid wood wrapped around the edge for durability).. <S> The idea seems to be that it works well enough, and is cheap to replace if necessary. <S> I would think a pine top would be no worse, but possibly not better. <S> MDF has the advantage of being flat as it comes from the factory and staying flat in use, while with any assembled top you have have to flatten it yourself after gluing it up. <S> I do seem to remember someone at one of the respected woodworking schools saying that softwood benches had held up perfectly adequately in the classroom for years .. <S> but I'd have trouble digging that citation out of the pile o' backissues, so don't take my word for it. <S> There's certainly something to be said for just producing a new benchtop if you decide you need one. <S> And unless you're building a leg vise, it isn't clear the support structure needs to be anything fancy. <S> There's also the question of just how critical a perfectly flat bench is. <S> It does help to have a flat reference surface, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the workbench... <A> The Janka hardness test is useful for considering surface material for a bench top that gets pounded and prodded. <S> Larch is a softwood with a Janka hardness of ~1200. <S> This is higher (higher = harder) than English oak, for example. <S> Whitewood - the lumber industry designation: <S> Whitewood is spruce, douglas fir, hemlock, pine and several other species of timber. <S> Used in domestic woodwork that will not be seen when the project is complete. <S> It doesn't usually grade very high -- #2 common with a small amount of #1. <S> It typically has staining problems, too. <S> ( due to compression wood) <S> Janka numbers --spruce spp. <S> 480 - 520doug fir <S> 660 - 710hemlock 500 - 680 <S> pine varies all over the place -Southern yellow ("whitewood" quality in the Southern US) <S> 860sugar <S> pine - 380 <S> Another point - implied in your question - lumber cost <S> I buy green wood from folks who run small mills. <S> Log run (one log) for <S> 10/4 pine bucked to 8'-10' goes for 30% of the cost of big box whitewood. <S> 30% grades #1. <S> Downside - you need a truck, you need to sticker and dry the wood properly. <A> I think there is no problem doing so. <S> Once it gets to beat up (if it does) it will be easy to plane down. <S> One thing on my table that I wish was different is the hard wood on the tail vice piece. <S> Not the piece on the jaw but the piece on the table. <S> My table at the end has a piece that runs perpendicular to the top for the jaw of the vice. <S> I know why they did this <S> but the piece is wearing much faster than the other pieces on the top and the height has greatly diminished. <S> So something to consider when you make yours I have to change this. <S> Good luck and a lot of great answers.
| Obviously softwoods are generally fairly soft and a bench made from softwood is going to be more prone to denting than one made of e.g. hard maple (a very popular choice in the US)
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.