Newsgroups: rec.woodworking

bennett@adobe.com(Bennett Leeds) writes:
>
>Normally in this situation I wouldn't be posting, since the Mr. Houtz's 
>followup added nothing that hadn't be stated or countered earlier. However,
>I feel the need to set the record straight:

  Oh, goody.  A flame war.

>G. Paul Houtz writes
>> bennett@adobe.com(Bennett Leeds) writes:
>> G. Paul Houtz writes
>> >> I would keep the jointer and let go of the planer. The planer is nice, but
>> >> I could live with higher priced 1/2 inch stock.
>> >
>> >You're trying to have it both ways here. If you let go of the planer, you
>> >remove the asset of "face jointing before planing," since you can no longer
>> >thickness plane.  And you've complained about the 1/2" stock that you
>> >buy not being really straight, because commercially noone face joints
>> >before thickness planing.
>> 
>>   No I'm not.  You have combined a number of things I have said into 
>>   a conclusion I did not make.  I did not say that if I let go fo the
>>   planer I would still be able to have perfectly flat dead parallel
>>   faces.  
>
>Nobody said that you said that. You touted face jointing before planing 
>as a reason to buy a jointer. I simply said that without a planer, it's no 
>longer a reason. You did complain about commerically planed lumber. Did you
>not in the earlier post say:
>
>> Lately I have started leveling the faces of lumber before I run it through
>> the planer. I now notice that my "flat" lumber I was buying from the 
>> wholesaler just isn't quite flat. The difference shows up in the end result.
>> Drawers that assemble easier and fit better, cleaner joints and angles, 
>> more reliable dimensions, etc. 
> 
>This is an exact quote of an entire paragraph. Note the combination of
>your first and second sentences, the first touting face jointing before
>planing, the second complaining about the quality of the pre-planed
>stock you buy commerically.
>
>You did the combining, not me.

   I am sorry if I touched a sore point with you.  It was not my intention
   to insult you.

   I also apologize most sincerely if I misled you, but you have to understand
   that I am a computer programmer and woodworker, not a writer, so sometimes
   I don't make my point as clearly as I intend to.

   When I said that the "difference" shows up in the end result, I had sort
   of shifted my meaning without making it clear.  I should have been more
   clear.   The difference that shows up in the end result is not just 
   due to perfectly flat, parallel faces, but also due to the fact that 
   I joint sides to exact right angles to the faces before putting them 
   against my rip fence or miter guage, and get better results from all my
   woodworking tools.    

   The principle of jointing stock before feeding it through a planer 
   works equally well for the tablesaw, shaper, and router.

>I agree it's a problem. I agree one *should* face joint before thickness
>planing. I just fail to see why this is a reason to get a jointer if one
>doesn't also have a planer. You and some others have fallen back on stating
>that you like having both a jointer and planer. Fine, and I agree. But,
>the original question, and still the subject line in these posts, is the
>jointer versus the planer - an exclusive arrangement.

   Like I said above, there are many other tools that benefit from jointed
   edges than just the planer.  The argument is simply that the jointer is
   a far more useful tool.   Face jointing is only part of it's use.

>> >To my way of thinking, it's easier to make a jig to adapt another machine
>> >to perform jointing tasks than it is to adapt another machine to perform
>> >thickness planing tasks. That's my bottom line on this.
>>
>>   Yup.  Tag Frid shows how to make a jig that turns a jointer into a
>>   thickness planer, and I wish I had known about that before I bough
>>   the planer.
>
>>   You could note that my router is built into my saw table, therefore, I 
>>   cannot use it easily for jointing, and this is true.
>
>Actually, having the router built into your saw table is a great way to
>perform edge jointing. You attach a secondary fence to the tablesaw's
>fence (where the back part of the fence sticks out 1/32" or so more than
>the front), and use it as the router table fence. You joint horizontally,
>using the saw table to support the work.
>
>What makes you think that setting up a router to do jointing is any
>harder or takes longer than setting up a jointer to do planing?  If
>anything, it's faster since the jig is simpler.

    My personal experience, Bennett, is that I joint all the time, and
    I plane only very rarely.   Planing is also something that I can easily
    do in a bulk run.    If I didn't have a planer, I could face joint all
    my stock in one set-up, then set up the jig and plane it in the second
    pass.   In fact, I usually do this when I start a project.  

    On the other hand, whenever I rip a board to size, I joint the edge.
    If I were to do this with my router,  the EVERY TIME I CUT A BOARD,
    I would have to move my saw fence, raise my router, mount the "jointing"
    jig, joint the edge, the lower the router and reset my saw fence.

    I would constantly be raising and lowering the router and setting up
    the jig.   

    Now, you could argue that I could cut all my stock to size, then set up
    the router, then joint the edges of all the stock.   But that defeats
    the purpose of routing to get a decent edge to use against fences.  I say
    that this is inconvenient at best.

    The alternative, which I have opted for, is to have my jointer all set up
    and ready to go.   I take a board, joint the edge, then put the jointed
    edge against my miter guage and cut it to size.   Or, lay it agains the
    rip fence, and rip it to width, then quickly lay it on the jointer and
    joint the edge.  I do this on each piece, until I am ready to assemble.

    The only time I raise my router is when all the pieces are cut out and
    jointed, and I am ready to route a decorative edge or "raise" a panel.

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

>I also mentioned using your tablesaw as a jointer.

    Again there is the problem with set up time, and I am not convinced
    that the tablesaw "joint" is at all comparable to the jointer's results.


>>    ...I do a LOT of finger joints....The only problem is a little bit of
>>    tearout on the back side. My jointer cleans this up perfectly...
>
>Only if the boards are not wider than your jointer. I guess you don't 
>need drawers or boxes deeper than 6", though.


   No, I don't.

> 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.   The result was that the drawer side was 
  thinner on the bottom and the end than the top middle.   This gave me 
  no end of problems trying to mount the drawer in a cabinet.   This was 
  before I had my jointer.  I ended up throwing the drawer away and making 
  a new one.
  
  I don't know.  Maybe you have better luck with your planer.

  The other thing about the planer is mine won't open up far enough to fit
  ANY of my kitchen cabinet drawers through it.   But then, I didn't pay
  $2000 for it.  I got a Delta portable.

  If I bought a planer because someone told me I could do this, I would have
  been really mad when I actually tried it.

>>    ... and rabbits the back edge of boxes, etc. for a piano hinge
>
>A tablesaw would cut rabbets faster. A router would let you make stopped
>rabbets, or rabbets along curved edges - either of which a jointer can't.

  A tablesaw and a router both require set-up to do the rabbit.  With the
  tablesaw, I have to take out the blade, put in an dado blade,  change 
  the throat plate, and then adjust blade to the right height, then clamp 
  on the feather board,  and then make the cut.

  With the jointer, I just unlock the fence, move it over to the correct
  depth, set the outfeed table and cut.  I might have to make a second pass
  for deep rabbits.

  Explain to me how the table saw would make rabbits faster.

  With the router, I would have to move my fence over, clamp on the router
  fence attachement and guard, put the correct bit in the router (since I
  usually have 1/2 roundover bit in it), set the depth, set the fence, then
  route the groove, then take off the router fence and guard, and drop the
  router back into the saw table.

  The REAL limitation to jointer rabbeting is simply the depth limitation
  and flexibility.  The infeed table only goes down so far, and a tablesaw
  or router can cut many more different kinds of rabbets.  But for the
  kind of rabbets I do on boxes, nothing is faster or more convenient.
>
>
>>   You may work differently,...
>
>I guess I do work differently. For instance, I use a backing board on my
>finger joint jig to I reduce tear out at the source. If I still had some
>tearout, though, 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.  I get a very nice finish on my jointer
  and it takes one ten second pass.   I couldn't even come close to this
  with a hand plane, especially on a 6 inch wide box side.

  I know some people have problems getting good finishes on jointers.  Usually
  it is because their jointer blades are not all at the same height, so only
  one blade is really cutting, or their blades are nicked or dull, or they
  can't tell which way the grain runs and are constantly feeding the work
  in backwards or taking to deep a cut.

  All these things (except blade height) are problems with hand planes as
  well.

>I haven't disagreed with your experience, I've disagreed with your
>recommendations to other woodworkers, and cited why.

  Actually, there is a very good article in the book "Power Saws and Planers"
  about jointers.  It talks about how to set one up, tune it, and use it
  to get better results from all other woodworking machines that require a
  reference edge.  I have used the jointer this way, and I can definitly 
  agree with what they have to say.

  I worked with hardwood stock for a long time before I finally bought a
  jointer.  I chewed it over, and tried a number different alternatives,
  including planing, routing, etc.  All of them came up wanting.   I read
  numerous articles on jointers, and even used one at my cousin's house
  before buying one.

  The last thing I am going to say is that my opinion is that it is a superior
  tool, and I would rather have it than the planer if it came to that.
  If Bennett disagrees with this, then fine.   There are many different ways
  to do things, and I am sure that Bennett's methods work very well for him,
  just as mine work well for me.

  This is the last I have to say in this matter.
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking