Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 75

Thread: Flattening a white oak board

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    One other thing to consider though: traversing aways brings the risk of spelching, and the only sure-fire way to avoid it is to put a big chamfer on the far side, which may not fully come out when you're done. So that may be a problem, depending on what you're doing with the material.
    Depends whether the workpiece is already close to final width, or will be ripped. If the latter it's just a matter of orientation...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    The technique you choose for any kind of planing,especially the long edge I was planing in the video,is to develop enough skill to not tilt the plane sideways either way while planing. The same is true of the sawing that just followed it: Learn to keep the saw strokes parallel. No waggling up and down of the saw. No forcing the saw into the wood so hard it gets hung up and tries to buckle the blade. But,the steady holding of the plane on the edge at 90º is the most important thing. Learning to not waggle the saw promotes better angle holding accuracy.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Did it really take 45 minutes (roughly) to flatten one face on that board?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Voigt View Post
    Cutting to the chase, traversing takes longer, but you will be less tired at the end.
    Sorry about the double-reply, but... If traversing leaves you less tired at the end them IMO you're not taking full advantage of the technique. The entire point of traversing is that it allows you to take a more rank cut while staying within your strength/endurance limits. If you're "less tired" while traversing then it's time to give that blade a tap or three...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Did it really take 45 minutes (roughly) to flatten one face on that board?
    No, flattening only took 17:00 (the first video).

    It then took him 45 minutes to thickness it down to 1-3/4". As previously noted I think that diagonal/cross strokes might have allowed a more rank set and thereby been slightly faster overall, but hand-thicknessing is brutally slow work regardless. There's a reason why I don't have a powered jointer, but do have a lunchbox planer...

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Hi Steve

    Thanks for the huge effort you put into the videos. Much appreciated.

    A couple of points ...

    Firstly, the issue of planing with the grain or traversing is decided by the nature of the wood (the highs/lows, grain type, hardness, brittleness, etc). It certainly would be my preference - where possible - to plane with the grain to remove high spots (I would find the best side to balance the board, so there is no one side I would always choose - the high could be in the centre or at the sides).

    Secondly, I draw a line around the board, if possible, even when there is a fair amount of twist or cupping on the side to be planed, and one has to judge where the line can go (this is pre-thicknessing). Planing to a line is always easier than guessing and constantly measuring. Getting one side flat is where it all starts (I mentioned this in the last Pop Wood edition, where I had the last article in the magazine - it was a rejoinder to Chris Schwarz and, although it concentrated on power tool use, the principle I follow remained the same ... aim to create one flat, coplanar side before you will proceed further).

    Thirdly, while I know this was for demonstration purposes, I would not thickness that board with a plane. I would first level one side with a plane (or machine), and then I would re-saw it (handsaw or bandsaw .. pick your poison). If this was a real situation, planing could waste a lot of wood, plus it takes so much more time and energy. If the waste thickness is little, I plane it away. The question then is, what is considered within reason to plane away ... 1/8", 1/4", 1/2" ..?

    Lastly, your body mechanics look good to me. While you could relax your hips a little more, I could see you rocking onto your knees (which is good), and then you would stiffen them, which brings the hips into play (also good). I think any awkwardness was a result of the planing height being at the limit, perhaps a little over, a comfortable height (the combination of a thick board and a high-sided plane). Incidentally, what wood were you planing, how hard is it, and how sharp were the blades in the planes you used. The jack seemed to struggle at times.

    Yes, I know I shall need to post a video and not just photos. I will do so when I have time (when projects are completed). Then you can have a shot at me!

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  7. #37
    Thanks for the videos Steve! I love to watch people working way to hard for their own good

    Reagdrng the traversing issue, I think for thicknessing it is actually a very good idea. The blade is in the wood most of the time, each stroke takjes full advantage of the cutting action. And you sure can remove a lot of wood in one swoop when planing across the grain with a scrub.

    But not so much for removing cup. It is the chick-nothing-chick syndrom of the jackplane trying to remove the material on both sides of the depression. 30 strokes with the jack plane cross wise, slowly working your way along the board, can be replaced with maybe 8 strokes lengthwise. The blade remains all the time in the cut in the latter version.

    BTW, when your youtube channel is ready, posting is not a lot of effort with an iphone. As long as you forget about editting. There is an upload button, and at least on my iphone, you can directly send the video to youtube. And when the video is really too long, you can shorten it on the iphone, at the start and at the end. I don't know if you can edit anything in the middle though.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom - Devon
    Posts
    503
    Thanks for the reply Steve. I also find watching myself in a video helpful, while drinking a glass of lemonade

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,252
    Blog Entries
    7
    Every time I re-watch that series of videos of George and his journeyman making the violin and harpsichord I gain more from it.

    The trouble with planning to resaw anything more than 1/8"~ is that it's more effort at some point. I'll resaw thinner stock because it's easier than taking alot of material off it, but heavy stock like 12" wide panels....not less work and you don't necessarily know if you are doing yourself a favor or a disservice in anything outside of straight grained material.
    Bumbling forward into the unknown.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Brian, that's the other decision: in addition to waste thickness, how wide a board (and how hard the wood) would decide you in favour (or not) of resawing by hand? It is not always a simple decision. That board of Steve's would be one for resawing, I believe.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Posts
    7,252
    Blog Entries
    7
    If you are setup to resaw wide boards quickly, by hand, that would likely bias your decision. However, I don't think Steve is taking off so much material that it really is a consideration. What you're left with, if he were to resaw it, is a thin board that tapers from maybe 3/16" to 1/16" that has two high spots. So 'maybe' you'll get a veneer out of it. The effort probably adds to the overall time and your left with a piece of 'veneer' without figure and likely will sit in a pile for quite some time, or cup and be practically useless.

    My opinion would change if you were left with something that could be used as drawer bottom or cabinet back, etc.

    However, we're deviating quite heavily from what Steve is attempting to show by bringing up every variable for consideration. If Steve band-sawed off one side of the board I think he would come into even more criticism as that is not overly helpful to people who work with just hand tools.
    Last edited by Brian Holcombe; 06-20-2016 at 8:49 AM.
    Bumbling forward into the unknown.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    I agree Brian. I mentioned re-sawing only as a point of interest. It was an aside.

    Do you have any comments about the technique shown by Steve?

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  13. #43
    When I made my dining room table I had to do quite some scrubbing to make the underside of the table top parallel to the upper side, with quite a bit of thicknessing mixed in. The scrubbing part of the job went pretty fast, but I didn't dare to get too close to the marking line, so I was left with a lot of work with the jack plane and the jointer parallel to the grain. But for this type of work, scrubbing across the grain is very fast. If it isn't a rediculous amount, then it sure beats handsawing a wide board.

    We discussed this issue a bit back then , and the concensus was that in the Middle ages or there abouts, they wouldn't thickness at all. They would just let in the legs to get a stable table and maybe chamfer the edges a bit to lighten the looks.

    Video from 2013:

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    When I made my dining room table I had to do quite some scrubbing to make the underside of the table top parallel to the upper side, with quite a bit of thicknessing mixed in. The scrubbing part of the job went pretty fast, but I didn't dare to get too close to the marking line, so I was left with a lot of work with the jack plane and the jointer parallel to the grain. But for this type of work, scrubbing across the grain is very fast. If it isn't a rediculous amount, then it sure beats handsawing a wide board.

    We discussed this issue a bit back then , and the concensus was that in the Middle ages or there abouts, they wouldn't thickness at all. They would just let in the legs to get a stable table and maybe chamfer the edges a bit to lighten the looks.

    Video from 2013:
    Yes - this is how I did my workbench top several years ago. Jack plane with a fairly well convex bade, 45 degree angles to the work, traversing and criss crossing to get the top basically level but not flat, then with the grain to get things close to flat, then finished with a small plane. Never used my jointer - it wasn't suitable for use back then as I didn't know much about proper setup. Steve would have been well served to use a scrub plane or at least go crossgrain in order to hog down the high spots and get the taper out of the board before doing the surfacing work he did. He could have 'shaved' considerable time out of the process.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    If you want to use tapered shims,it is o.k.,I suppose. But I would recommend planing with the concave side down to start with. Not really an important issue. Take it for what it's worth.
    Last edited by george wilson; 06-20-2016 at 10:39 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •