From: bennett@adobe.com(Bennett Leeds)
Subject: Re: re: Jointer vs Planer - Thanks
Reply-To: bennett@adobe.com
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:23:24 GMT


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:

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 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.


> >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.

I discussed this type of jig in my previous post. I think you'd be
dissapointed in its performance. For why, reread my post.


>   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.

I also mentioned using your tablesaw as a jointer.


>    ...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. 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.


>    ... 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.


>   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.


>  ...but you can't disagree with my experience, because it is MY experience.

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


- Bennett Leeds
bennett@adobe.com
Opinions are mine alone.