<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Exposing the Jointer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/</link>
	<description>A chronicle of woodworking and furniture design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:03:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-5509</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 02:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-5509</guid>
		<description>Hey Jeff,

Great meeting you at MASW this past week.  Sorry that I did not catch up with you one more time before I left on Friday.

As far as your questions...actually the joints for this piece are the headrest for the Sculpted Rocker that I am making (interrupted to come to MASW).  So, they are in the same rough glued up state.  However, the glue joints went together very well.  Definitely tighter than the original power jointed surface...had that suction kind of fit when put together dry. 

I agree about not obsessing about the fluffy-ness of the shavings.  The best, most efficient, shaving is the thickest one you can take without getting tear out, right? 

That&#039;s a good point on the jointer fence, too.  Especially when the pieces are large, it&#039;s very easy to mis-handle them and get a non-square edge.  Alternating the board faces (in, out toward the jointer fence) does work to give complimentary angles as long as you take a light cut to avoid tearout of going against the grain due to the alternating faces.

I would still like to get a jointer plane...not so much for shorter pieces like these (smoother works OK for these), but for longer ones and also for helping to flatten pieces that are too wide for my 6&quot; jointer.

--Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Jeff,</p>
<p>Great meeting you at MASW this past week.  Sorry that I did not catch up with you one more time before I left on Friday.</p>
<p>As far as your questions&#8230;actually the joints for this piece are the headrest for the Sculpted Rocker that I am making (interrupted to come to MASW).  So, they are in the same rough glued up state.  However, the glue joints went together very well.  Definitely tighter than the original power jointed surface&#8230;had that suction kind of fit when put together dry. </p>
<p>I agree about not obsessing about the fluffy-ness of the shavings.  The best, most efficient, shaving is the thickest one you can take without getting tear out, right? </p>
<p>That&#8217;s a good point on the jointer fence, too.  Especially when the pieces are large, it&#8217;s very easy to mis-handle them and get a non-square edge.  Alternating the board faces (in, out toward the jointer fence) does work to give complimentary angles as long as you take a light cut to avoid tearout of going against the grain due to the alternating faces.</p>
<p>I would still like to get a jointer plane&#8230;not so much for shorter pieces like these (smoother works OK for these), but for longer ones and also for helping to flatten pieces that are too wide for my 6&#8243; jointer.</p>
<p>&#8211;Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff S</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-5505</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 23:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-5505</guid>
		<description>Mark,

how has the joiner/handplane combo worked for you since the original post.  a question i would have is what the glue joints now look like.  i&#039;m not sure you need a #7/#8 since you&#039;ve already created a flatter edge ( how long is your joiner bed vs a #8 ).  a shorter plane will follow any highs/lows; but does a smoother put waves into the &quot;face&quot; of a board already flattened with say a #8.

again, is the glue joint tighter?  it might be the same thing as obsessing about super thin fluffy shavings coming out the plane mouth.  Gaussy shavings are fine, but at the end of the day they go in the trash.  The finished surface on your project is whats important.

Another example would be what we stress at MASW.  Dont obess about the joiner fence being 90.0000 degree.  Whats important is that your board be 90 degree ( or complimentary angle for a multiple board glue up).  Even if the fence is 90 you can screw up by not feeding the board in properly.

jeff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>how has the joiner/handplane combo worked for you since the original post.  a question i would have is what the glue joints now look like.  i&#8217;m not sure you need a #7/#8 since you&#8217;ve already created a flatter edge ( how long is your joiner bed vs a #8 ).  a shorter plane will follow any highs/lows; but does a smoother put waves into the &#8220;face&#8221; of a board already flattened with say a #8.</p>
<p>again, is the glue joint tighter?  it might be the same thing as obsessing about super thin fluffy shavings coming out the plane mouth.  Gaussy shavings are fine, but at the end of the day they go in the trash.  The finished surface on your project is whats important.</p>
<p>Another example would be what we stress at MASW.  Dont obess about the joiner fence being 90.0000 degree.  Whats important is that your board be 90 degree ( or complimentary angle for a multiple board glue up).  Even if the fence is 90 you can screw up by not feeding the board in properly.</p>
<p>jeff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2885</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2885</guid>
		<description>Carl,

Yep, that&#039;s exactly how I do edge jointing with my plane.  As you said,the back to back orientation cancels out any error that you get if you are not perfectly square to the face when you plane.  Great technique!  David Charlesworth&#039; method of using different parts of a cambered blade to shave partsof the edge to achieve square is also a good one.

For these pieces, as you stated they are 2&quot; thick and also have a 4 degree bevel on the edge - you can see what I am doing with them in the Sculpted Rocking Chair posts).  So, back to back was not as god of an option.

Thanks for the comments!

--Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carl,</p>
<p>Yep, that&#8217;s exactly how I do edge jointing with my plane.  As you said,the back to back orientation cancels out any error that you get if you are not perfectly square to the face when you plane.  Great technique!  David Charlesworth&#8217; method of using different parts of a cambered blade to shave partsof the edge to achieve square is also a good one.</p>
<p>For these pieces, as you stated they are 2&#8243; thick and also have a 4 degree bevel on the edge &#8211; you can see what I am doing with them in the Sculpted Rocking Chair posts).  So, back to back was not as god of an option.</p>
<p>Thanks for the comments!</p>
<p>&#8211;Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2879</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:43:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2879</guid>
		<description>I use a #5 to clean up the edge before edge jointing.  I clamp both sides together so that the face sides are on the inside. I then use my #5 to plane both sides at the same time.  This way, even if you skew the plane to one side a little bit, the fit will be perfect.  
You could probably do this with a #4 too.   
But this won&#039;t work with 2&quot; thick material unless you find a 4&quot; wide plane somewhere.
I picked this up when talking to one of the craftsman at Williamsburg 5 or 6 years ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I use a #5 to clean up the edge before edge jointing.  I clamp both sides together so that the face sides are on the inside. I then use my #5 to plane both sides at the same time.  This way, even if you skew the plane to one side a little bit, the fit will be perfect.<br />
You could probably do this with a #4 too.<br />
But this won&#8217;t work with 2&#8243; thick material unless you find a 4&#8243; wide plane somewhere.<br />
I picked this up when talking to one of the craftsman at Williamsburg 5 or 6 years ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2424</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2424</guid>
		<description>Shannon,

Thanks.  You&#039;re right, the chalk is definitely cheaper!

I am currently thinking that the #7 may be a better match for my physical size.  I understand that the #8 (or the #608) is pretty massive.

--Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shannon,</p>
<p>Thanks.  You&#8217;re right, the chalk is definitely cheaper!</p>
<p>I am currently thinking that the #7 may be a better match for my physical size.  I understand that the #8 (or the #608) is pretty massive.</p>
<p>&#8211;Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shannon</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2418</link>
		<dc:creator>Shannon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2418</guid>
		<description>Mark,

The 608 is the bedrock version of the #8.  If you get a Lie-Nielsen #8 you are getting a modern reproduction of the 608.  This is a great post.  I have been rough milling lumber for my workbench for almost 3 weeks now and the longer the board gets the more inadequate the jointer seems to be.  I haven&#039;t been planing the entire face, but I find myself touching up parts using my #7.  Great observation, I like the chalk technique.  Now I need to go get some chalk.  Fortunately that is cheaper than a jointer plane.

Shannon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>The 608 is the bedrock version of the #8.  If you get a Lie-Nielsen #8 you are getting a modern reproduction of the 608.  This is a great post.  I have been rough milling lumber for my workbench for almost 3 weeks now and the longer the board gets the more inadequate the jointer seems to be.  I haven&#8217;t been planing the entire face, but I find myself touching up parts using my #7.  Great observation, I like the chalk technique.  Now I need to go get some chalk.  Fortunately that is cheaper than a jointer plane.</p>
<p>Shannon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2394</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2394</guid>
		<description>Doug,

I was thinking about a No. 7.  I&#039;m not sure I&#039;ve seen a No. 608.  I&#039;ll have to take a look.  From the number it sounds smaller than the 7, but you indicate that it has extra mass so that makes me think otherwise.  Thanks for stopping by the blog.

--Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doug,</p>
<p>I was thinking about a No. 7.  I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;ve seen a No. 608.  I&#8217;ll have to take a look.  From the number it sounds smaller than the 7, but you indicate that it has extra mass so that makes me think otherwise.  Thanks for stopping by the blog.</p>
<p>&#8211;Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2393</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark (TheCraftsmansPath.com)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2393</guid>
		<description>Scott,

Yep, I think you&#039;re tight.  Thanks for visiting the blog.

--Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott,</p>
<p>Yep, I think you&#8217;re tight.  Thanks for visiting the blog.</p>
<p>&#8211;Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Brummett</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2391</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Brummett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2391</guid>
		<description>Good observations.  Once you have seen how good the cut quality is with a hand plane it is hard to let machined edges go.  I will still glue line rip and go from the jointer when time is tight, but on show pieces with glue lines it will be done with a plane.

A jointer is great.  I have both a no7 and no608 but I have been favoring the no608 since I got it.  The mass is fantastic as is the wide blade.  Surprisingly for Stanley&#039;s biggest cast iron plane it can produce excellent surface finish if you tighten up the mouth.  At any rate, I highly recommend getting a hand jointer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good observations.  Once you have seen how good the cut quality is with a hand plane it is hard to let machined edges go.  I will still glue line rip and go from the jointer when time is tight, but on show pieces with glue lines it will be done with a plane.</p>
<p>A jointer is great.  I have both a no7 and no608 but I have been favoring the no608 since I got it.  The mass is fantastic as is the wide blade.  Surprisingly for Stanley&#8217;s biggest cast iron plane it can produce excellent surface finish if you tighten up the mouth.  At any rate, I highly recommend getting a hand jointer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Hill</title>
		<link>http://thecraftsmanspath.com/2009/01/10/exposing-the-jointer/comment-page-1/#comment-2374</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thecraftsmanspath.com/?p=356#comment-2374</guid>
		<description>Sounds like fun.  Now you just need a jointer plane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like fun.  Now you just need a jointer plane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
