Newsgroups: rec.woodworking

bennett@adobe.com (Bennett Leeds) writes:
>
>>    The argument is simply that the jointer is a far more useful tool.
>
>You've gotten no argument from me on this point, yet.

   Yet you continually debate with me about my original statement of 
   opinion, that in my opinion one should buy a jointer before buying
   a thickness planer.

   You are a master at splitting hairs.


>     The convenience is having a jointer and a saw both working at the same
>     time.

>When you move your router futher away from the main table in your extension  
>wing, you could have a second fence setup at the router for jointing, so that  
>you can still use your tablesaw fence solely for ripping. Since you aren't  
>using boards wider than 6", the two fences shouldn't interfere with each other.
>
>   Unless you routinely use the rip fence as a cut-off guage, as I do.
>
>Besides, the loss of this convenience is smaller than the loss of convenience  
>of not having a thickness planer, or trying to jerry-rig your jointer to  
>perform thickness planing tasks. It is the price one pays for being able to  
>have only one tool.

>   Pure opinion.

>> > A planer would do the job
>> >just as well. If your planer end-snipes, feeding a scrap board immediately
>> >behind the work will cause the snipe to occur on the scrap instead.
>>
>>   It's funny.  I tried this once in a planer.  Since there is no support
>>   on the open end of the box side, the pressure of the planer twisted the 
>>   drawer side in at the middle.
>
>Who said anything about running an *assembled* drawer or box through the  
>planer? You simply run the board that you've cut the finger joints in through  
>the planer. Before assembling the box, of course.

   This is an example of where actually working with the tool makes a big
   difference in your perspective.

   The BAD tearout is obvious and could be planed out.   Unfortunately, the
   kind of tearout I am talking about is the kind that happens even with 
   a backing board in place, and sometimes isn't obvious until after you have
   assembled the joint and cut off the overhang from the fingers.

   Many times I have assembled the box and gotten close to my final finish,
   and then examined the fingers carefully, only to find a tiny bit of tearout
   at the edge of one side.
 
   While it is true that I could routinely thickness plane EVERY finger-jointed
   side, this would slow things down considerably.  Much more convenient to
   take a quick pass on the jointer.

>>   Explain to me how the table saw would make rabbits faster.
>
>For deep rabbets, you would have to make more passes on the jointer than on a  
>the board on edge for the second cut. 

   No way.   I could make 10 or 20 passes on the jointer in the time it takes
   to switch to the dado blade and set it to height.

>                                       Since you can't do deep passes on your  
>jointer, I take it back - for the rabbets within the capacity of your jointer, 
>the jointer is faster.

   As I said before, the jointer is more convenient for this use, tablesaws
   and routers give you much more flexibility.
  
>
>> >...I'd probably clean it up with hand plane - probably almost
>> >as fast and it'd give a better finish than a power jointer.
>> 
>>   I find this extremely debatable.
>
>Why? A hand plane cuts a continuous shaving, rather than a bunch of individual 
>scallops. It also doesn't pound the wood the way jointer or planer knives can. 
>You might want to check out James Krenov's books on this subject, BTW ;^).
>You should sight down your power jointer-finished surface, with a light hitting
>it at a complementary angle (work between you and the light). Or, just set your
>finished box on a coffee table and take a look at it when the sun is rising or 
>setting through a window. Having your jointer tuned and feeding the work slowly
>simply increases the number and reduces the size of the scallops, but they are
>always there.

  As I said before, with three blades and a ~4000 rpm  I defy you to detect
  the scallops without a microscope.
>
>>    So, now I have Bernard Maas on my side, saying a jointer is an essential
>>    woodworking tool, and also James Krenov, in addition to Tag Frid who
>>    also uses his jointer as a planer.
>
>To my knowledge none of these people have written that one should buy a jointer
>instead of a thickness planer if one can afford only one of the two. 
>
>"A Cabinetmaker's Notebook" was written quite a while ago, as was Frid's  
 
   Oops, sorry, I wrote the wrong title.  The book was "The Art Of Cabinet-
   making".   

   By the way, R. J. Christoforo has a book out about woodworking machines,
   and he also talks about how useful jointers are.   In fact, he points out
   that the particular combination of tablesaw and jointer is very valuable,
   and some manufacturers at one time made a jointer/tablesaw combination, 
   which is basically what I have, since I keep the jointer near the table
   saw and use them both most of the time.

   I think this discussion with Bennett has generated nearly as much 
   light as heat :-).   I am sure that for some people, the thickness planer
   is needed much more than the jointer, however for the projects I do,
   just the opposite is true.  


   -gph