I hope people reply to the list as I'm sure I'm not
the only other person interested in this. I've seen
several books that talk about this, but I'm still
interested in hearing first-hand accounts. 

Andrew

--- "John R. Wilson"  wrote:
> I am currently working on a 7 shelf and double
> raised panel cupboard 
> in the shaker style.  It will be used by a local
> artist to store her 
> work in progress.  The hard maple stock I am using
> is 5/4 with rough 
> faces and edges.  The wood looks nice but it is
> center cut and may 
> cup if I mill it thin (7/16 or less).  I intend on
> working the 
> material down by hand 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

I am currently working on a 7 shelf and double raised panel cupboard 
in the shaker style.  It will be used by a local artist to store her 
work in progress.  The hard maple stock I am using is 5/4 with rough 
faces and edges.  The wood looks nice but it is center cut and may 
cup if I mill it thin (7/16 or less).  I intend on working the 
material down by hand because I need to reduce the carcass sides to 1 
inch or 15/16 thick.  I have a full stash of old and new bench planes 
from #1 to #8 and scrapers to match the widths of  most of my bench 
planes.  I own a scrub plane (#40) and some large owner made woodies 
(I'll show you sometime when I get the courage).  My question is 
basic --- If I was in a hurry I would reduce the stock with my loud 
dusty portable power planer --- How do I do it with hand tools?  My 
benches are both western (with end vise and dogs) and European (two 
front vices, no holes, no dogs, good support jack for edge work.  The 
maple is without twist, cup or wind, but it looks like I will be 
removing at least 3/16 material from over 75 board feet of stock!  I 
am looking for suggestions for jigs, methods, etc.  Any good 
suggestions will be attempted and appreciated.  So far I have squared 
and smoothed the edges of 4 - 50 inch boards and the satisfaction was 
worth the effort.  For the faces of the boards I will need a good 
systematic old tools solution.  How did the venerable old wood 
grubbers do it?

Rex Wilson

Rex and All--
	After reading this query a couple of times, I'm a little confused (not 
all that different from my permanent condition, I'll admit).  The rough 
stock is 5/4, and must be taken to 4/4 or a little less (15/16).  That 
sounds like the amount to be removed is more like 5/16 than 3/16.  In 
contemplating this much dimensioning of lumber with hand tools, the 
difference is significant, if only in the amount of grunt labor 
involved.
	But back to basics:  Several procedures will probably work, but the 
time-honored process, with no jigs other than bench dogs and end 
vise/dog or similar device to secure the piece, is incorporated in the 
FEWTEL acronym:  Face, Edge, Width, Thickness, End, Length.  Details 
are as follows:
	1) Make one Face of the board flat and smooth.  This becomes the 1st 
reference surface.  I would do this mostly with a jack plane, or jumbo 
jack (Stanley #5 1/2), or a #6 foreplane.  The surface is not "final," 
just removing the sawmill roughness and getting it even and reasonably 
flat.  No scrubbing yet.  This is where you try to take out any wind 
(long I sound, not blowing air) or twist, or convexity along the 
length, or other deviations from "reasonably flat."  Winding sticks can 
be useful here.
	2) Make one Edge square to the smoothed face, and straight 
("jointed").  This is the 2nd reference surface.
	3) Rip to Width, and square and joint the second edge, using the 1st 
face for square reference and the 1st edge for width reference.  At 
this point, you use a marking gauge to scribe lines along both edges, 
from the 1st reference surface, just short* of the thickness you want 
to achieve.  (Just short, because you'll be planing down *to* that 
line.  If you plane past the mark you've made, you have no way of 
telling where you are, in reference to the thickness you want, short of 
repeated use of caliper gauge, mullet, or similar.)
	4) Plane to desired Thickness.  This is when the fun, or work as some 
used to call it, begins.  Now is the time to put your  scrub plane (#40 
or a wide-mouth jack with heavily cambered grind on the iron) to use.  
Use diagonal strokes, full across and working evenly along the whole 
surface, alternating the diagonal directions of each pass.  You want to 
keep an eye on where the edge of each pass comes out at the edge, in 
relation to your scribed mark, and don't try to get to close to it with 
the scrub.  When hogging off wood like this, it is easy to go too far.  
When your scrubbing approaches the line, switch to the same jack or 
foreplane you used to smooth the 1st reference face, and continue 
working the surface, now removing the ridges left by scrubbing, until 
you are just down to (but not past) the scribed thickness mark.  In the 
final stages, check the mark frequently.  It is easy at this stage, 
making nice long passes with a sharp plane,  for one or more corners to 
be reduced beyond the line, where you don't want to go.
	5) When the thicknessing is complete cut one End square.
	6) Finally, cut to Length.  Your dimensioned board is complete.
	A couple of othr hints:  If you will need to glue up panels or make 
one wide board from two or more narrow ones in the course of your 
project, I would suggest leaving the stock slightly thicker than the 
final dimension, and work it on down to desired thickess (with a finer 
set, approaching final smoothing) *after* the panels are glued up.  
With dimensioning by hand, there *will* be some small irregularities in 
thickness that are best worked out after edge jointing and glue up, 
that you need to allow for.
	Others can chime in regarding use of a 'mullet' to check thickness and 
other ancient practices, but this should give you a place to start.
	Good luck,
		Tom Holloway

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 07:04 AM, John "Rex" Wilson wrote:
> I am currently working on a 7 shelf and double raised panel cupboard 
> in the shaker style.  It will be used by a local artist to store her 
> work in progress.  The hard maple stock I am using is 5/4 with rough 
> faces and edges.  The wood looks nice but it is center cut and may cup 
> if I mill it thin (7/16 or less).  I intend on working the material 
> down by hand because I need to reduce the carcass sides to 1 inch or 
> 15/16 thick.  I have a full stash of old and new bench planes from #1 
> to #8 and scrapers to match the widths of  most of my bench planes.  I 
> own a scrub plane (#40) and some large owner made woodies (I'll show 
> you sometime when I get the courage).  My question is basic --- If I 
> was in a hurry I would reduce the stock with my loud dusty portable 
> power planer --- How do I do it with hand tools?  My benches are both 
> western (with end vise and dogs) and European (two front vices, no 
> holes, no dogs, good support jack for edge work.  The maple is without 
> twist, cup or wind, but it looks like I will be removing at least 3/16 
> material from over 75 board feet of stock!  I am looking for 
> suggestions for jigs, methods, etc.  Any good suggestions will be 
> attempted and appreciated.  So far I have squared and smoothed the 
> edges of 4 - 50 inch boards and the satisfaction was worth the effort. 
>  For the faces of the boards I will need a good systematic old tools 
> solution.  How did the venerable old wood grubbers do it?
>
> Rex Wilson

actually, tom is going to be bringing some 6/4x12"x20' hard, curly 
maple stock down to 4/4x11"x6' at the bagathering on the 6th...using 
occam's razor and a copper hammer*.

bill
felton, ca

*right, tom?

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:30 AM, Nichael Cramer wrote:

> T&J Holloway wrote:
>> Rex and All--
>> [...much snippage, regretfully done...]
>
> For those just learning to do this, I would suggest that the
> one thing comparable to Tom's totally excellent essay would
> be to actually _see_ a master doing this work.  And for this
> I would most heartily recommend getting your hands on a copy
> of Jim Kingshott's "Bench Planes" tape, which covers this
> material in great detail.
>
> N
>
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
> To unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface:
>     http://galoots.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=oldtools
>

I would like to second that please. As well, if anyone has information
on making a set of winding sticks, type of wood, if there is a
recommended size, etc. I know this is a necessary part of this process,
but haven't had much time or luck in finding detailed information.

----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Midkiff 
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:21 am Subject: [oldtools] Re: Help
with dimensioning stock

> I hope people reply to the list as I'm sure I'm not the only other
> person interested in this. I've seen several books that talk about
> this, but I'm still interested in hearing first-hand accounts.
>
> Andrew
>
> --- "John R. Wilson"  wrote:
> > I am currently working on a 7 shelf and double raised panel cupboard
> > in the shaker style. It will be used by a local artist to store her
> > work in progress. The hard maple stock I am using is 5/4 with rough
> > faces and edges. The wood looks nice but it is center cut and may
> > cup if I mill it thin (7/16 or less). I intend on working the
> > material down by hand
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design
> software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> Archive: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/ To
> > unsubscribe or change options, use the web interface: http://galoots.law.cor
nell.edu/cgi-
> bin/lyris.pl?enter=oldtools
>
>

Tom provides the basics of the stock preparation business with hand 
tools. I am sure most of us work pretty well to this scheme.

I would add a couple of points and ask a question.

  1 I work against a stop, rather than between stops, so the board is 
free to move during planing. This requires that the ends be close to 
square to the length first. It also means that the sides have to be 
roughly square to the faces.

  2 I would cut the boards down to the rough length first - long 
boards are harder to plane than shorter boards.

  3 I prefer to do each step (as outlined by Tom) to all the boards 
before moving on to the next step.

  4 The question. Do people use the mullet method? It seems to me that 
having a good line on the edge and planing down to that line is much 
better. I work the scrub to a few scrub thickness of the line, then 
the jack to a few jack shavings of the line, then the smoother. The 
last smoother stroke removes the top of the mark (an ideal I shoot 
for, but never achieve for the full length of the board, but at this 
point the shavings are pretty thin so the errors small.) Near the end 
I can flip up the board and see how I am doing along the full length 
and react (remove the high spots) accordingly. If the first thing you 
do is remove the gauge marks it seems to me it must be much harder to 
check your progress.

Aside from the big ideas in dimensions stock (face, edge, ...) I think 
some of these smaller ideas are also important and would be interested 
  in other's approaches to these details.

Brent

T&J Holloway wrote:
> ...
>     1) Make one Face of the board flat and smooth.  This becomes the 1st 
> ...
>     Others can chime in regarding use of a 'mullet' to check thickness 
> and other ancient practices, but this should give you a place to start.

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Bill Kasper wrote:
> actually, tom is going to be bringing some 6/4x12"x20' hard, curly 
> maple stock down to 4/4x11"x6' at the BAGathering on the 6th...using 
> occam's razor and a copper hammer*.
> bill
> felton, ca
>
> *right, tom?

	Well, no, Bill.  I have a couple of froes laying around the place, and 
I was gonna let you dimension the piece in question with froe and club, 
for the edification of those assembled.  Scott Grandstaff is all set to 
supply the brake.
	Alternatively, I've trained my border collie dog to dimension stock 
with his teeth, thus avoiding the "scrub plane" stage.  It's quite a 
show.
		Tom

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 12:40 PM, Brent Beach provides some 
amendments:
>  1 I work against a stop, rather than between stops, so the board is 
> free to move during planing. This requires that the ends be close to 
> square to the length first. It also means that the sides have to be 
> roughly square to the faces.

	I was trying to avoid taking Ian Kirby's name in vain in this 
discussion, but it seems to me that when dimensioning rough stock it is 
a major advantage to be able to secure the piece in such a way that it 
can be worked without worrying about it sliding around.  Conversely, I 
see no advantage to leaving the board "free to move."  Even with a 
Kirby-style stop-only bench, it is fairly easy to rig up a simple 
system to keep the workpiece in one place.  For example, put the piece 
against the stop, and at the other end, clamp a lath or board thinner 
that what is to be planed, close to the end of the workpiece.  Use a 
scrap about as wide as the bench, and secure it with a short bar or C 
clamp to each edge of the bench.  Then use a narrow wedge to close the 
space between the lath and the end of the workpiece, thus securing it 
between lath and stop.  If the bench is even more Normitic, with just a 
plain flat surface, two such clamped cross-pieces, with one wedge, can 
make it Galoot-compatible, without resorting to nailing blocks to the 
top of the bench, boring dog holes that you don't want to have to 
explain to the Normite next door, or other brutality.  To anticipate a 
detail that has come up before:  securing a workpiece for planing (with 
time-honored vise-and-dog, wedges, or similar systems), does *not* 
imply squeezing it to the point of bowing or distorting.  It just means 
"securing."

>  2 I would cut the boards down to the rough length first - long boards 
> are harder to plane than shorter boards.
>
	I will certainly agree with this.  Not *final* length, but within an 
inch or so of what the final dimensions will be.  Same goes for width, 
for that matter.  Leaving the rough cutoffs unplaned not only saves 
work, but leaves them to be used in a different way on a different day. 
		
		Tom Holloway

T&J Holloway wrote:
>Rex and All--
> [...much snippage, regretfully done...]

For those just learning to do this, I would suggest that the
one thing comparable to Tom's totally excellent essay would
be to actually _see_ a master doing this work.  And for this
I would most heartily recommend getting your hands on a copy
of Jim Kingshott's "Bench Planes" tape, which covers this
material in great detail.

N

ah.  use the froe on the wood and the club on my head...lol.

occam's razor, indeed.

see you next weekend...

bill
felton, ca

just say tom has one very, very well trained board, er, border collie...

On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 01:50 PM, T&J Holloway wrote:

>
> On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:53 AM, Bill Kasper wrote:
>> actually, tom is going to be bringing some 6/4x12"x20' hard, curly 
>> maple stock down to 4/4x11"x6' at the BAGathering on the 6th...using 
>> occam's razor and a copper hammer*.
>> bill
>> felton, ca
>>
>> *right, tom?
>
> 	Well, no, Bill.  I have a couple of froes laying around the place, 
> and I was gonna let you dimension the piece in question with froe and 
> club, for the edification of those assembled.  Scott Grandstaff is all 
> set to supply the brake.
> 	Alternatively, I've trained my border collie dog to dimension stock 
> with his teeth, thus avoiding the "scrub plane" stage.  It's quite a 
> show.
> 		Tom

GGs;

> As well, if anyone has information on making a set of winding sticks,
> type of wood, if there is a recommended size, etc.  I know this is a
> necessary part of this process, but haven't had much time or luck in
> finding detailed information.

An alternative to winding sticks that I learned here on the Porch requires
a single spirit level and maybe a shim: (1) Place the board on the bench
and shim a corner as necessary until the level placed across the end is
level. (2) Place the level across the other end. (3) If it's level,
there's no wind; if not, you can easily determine the amount of wind by
lifting the end of the level away from the bubble until it centers.

This approach has three advantages: (1) it's much easier on old geezer
eyes; (2) the spirit level can't develop any distortions as wood sticks
can; (3) since it's a one-piece solution, you don't have to keep two
sticks together. Of course, a spirit level may not be as sexy as a nice
pair of winding sticks; you'll have to decide for yourself. OTOH, this
approach may provide a use for that fine Davis or Starrett level just
sitting around your shop.

Steve - another Kokomo galoot

Tom's basics:
 
>repeated use of caliper gauge, mullet, or similar.)
>	4) Plane to desired Thickness.....

At this point I like to add a bevel on the thickness that
will be removed. The gauge mark is the lower edge of the
bevel and the bevel goes all around the piece. It's a great
visual reference, you don't have to bend all the time and look 
for the gauge mark, and it helps prevent tearout along the 
edges when you're going at it in diagonals with a scrub plane. 
The bevel gets narrower and narower as you get close to the 
final thickness. Don't remember where I picked this up, Wearing?

Hope this  helps.

Louis Michaud
Rimouski, Quebec 

>> repeated use of caliper gauge, mullet, or similar.)
>> 	4) Plane to desired Thickness.....
>
> At this point I like to add a bevel on the thickness that
> will be removed. The gauge mark is the lower edge of the
> bevel and the bevel goes all around the piece.

> Louis Michaud

how do you avoid tearing out when you put on a bevel across the grain?  
seems like an opportunity for much wailing and lamenting of the women* 
to put a cross grain bevel on a piece using a roughing jack plane.

* obligatory Arnold quote required of all California residents.

-SM-
RWC, CA

I've got a Veritas Bench, and I created two stops to scrub against. Each
is about 1/2" tall. One is 2 holes long, the other is 3 holes long.
Since the dog holes are symetrical I can alternate which goes where. I
create an L, and just push in to it. For reversing the scrub, I move one
stop to the other end, and keep going.

I also created something similar to a softdog, which is a 3/4" dowel
with a thin piece of UMHW on top, for the really thin stock.

I take the muzzles off the Veritas dogs, and push them as far down
into the bench as needed, but have yet to plane against them for
anything less than
8/4 stock, being basically a coward about having to grind out big nicks
  with my hand grinder. There great for clamping, or holding for sawing
  or chiseling or..............................

Veritas Bench at http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=31152&cate-
gory=1,41637&ccurrency=2&SID=

Andy Wilkins wrote:

> I'm interested in you working against a stop. I've seen another galoot
> do this too, but it's never worked for me - the board skips over the
> stop, or slides sideways or something. Maybe my planing method isn't
> smooth enough? But how on earth does the stop hold the job when you're
> scrubbing (at roughly 45deg)? - must be awfully annoying, no?!
>
> Does anyone else curse their "Veritas Wonder Dog" when doing thin
> pieces? Too many times have i heard a "bang" of steel against steel,
> rather than the "swish" of steel planing wood - the plane has taken a
> bite into the dog's top (which appears to be made of steel).... i wish
> they made a version that sits closer to the bench.

--
Kirk Eppler Global Mfg Science and Technology Eppler.Kirk@g...

-----Original Message-----

how do you avoid tearing out when you put on a bevel across the grain?
seems like an opportunity for much wailing and lamenting of the women*
to put a cross grain bevel on a piece using a roughing jack plane.

* obligatory Arnold quote required of all California residents.

------------------------------

No tearout at 45degrees to the grain.  None at 90degrees either.  Not
really.  You're not going against the grain, you are going across it.
Otherwise you could never make a raised panel.  In this way I 'crush my wood
fibers and see them driven before me * '

That said.  Be careful with the scrub plane as it can take a bigger bite
than you expect.  Yank a divot right out of there.  Especially around
contrary grain.  This is why I don't get TOO far to the gage line.

I also bevel the edge as a cheap for a topside indicator of how close I get.
That way I don't have to squint.  I don't bevel RIGHT to the gage line.
That way I can get the jack, plane of the rest and still get that whisker
when I switch to a finer plane.  Like the Pit-Bull Stunning Jointer.

: -----Original Message-----
: From: Steve from Kokomo [mailto:stjones@k...]
: Sent: 28 August 2003 19:47
: To: oldtools
: Cc: oldtools@c...
: Subject: [oldtools] Re: Help with dimensioning stock
:
: This approach has three advantages: (1) it's much easier on old geezer
: eyes;

And on the knees, although the exercise could be beneficial!

Also in my shop, there's limited space between the ends of the bench and
the wall.

One snag is that the tested surface does have to be flat (or concave),
otherwise the level can rock.

For those who might be interested, I did some work on the geometry of
twist that is now on my web site. Please look under 'Planing Notes' -
'Coping With Twist'. (I fear that the formatting of the text could do
with some improvement).

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email: amgron@c...
http://www.amgron.clara.net

Dear All,

There's no way i use any "mullet", Brent.

I'm interested in you working against a stop.  I've seen another
galoot do this too, but it's never worked for me - the board skips
over the stop, or slides sideways or something.  Maybe my planing
method isn't smooth enough?  But how on earth does the stop hold
the job when you're scrubbing (at roughly 45deg)?  - must be awfully
annoying, no?!

I clamp between dogs and vice, etc.  But for very thin long strips i
screw their end to a piece of wood which i then clamp to the end
of the bench and plane away from the clamp.   (That reminds me - if
any galoots have got small children, it's very easy to replicate
the "Thomas and Friends" wooden railway tracks - you can even buy
stock that's basically already dimensioned (42mm x 13mm), for the
straight ones and "risers" (steam bend the wood) anyway.)

Does anyone else curse their "Veritas Wonder Dog" when doing 
thin pieces?  Too many times have i heard a "bang" of steel against
steel, rather than the "swish" of steel planing wood - the plane
has taken a bite into the dog's top (which appears to be 
made of steel).... i wish they made a version that sits closer to
the bench.

a

Brent wrote, amongst other things:
>   1 I work against a stop, rather than between stops, so the board is 
> free to move during planing.

>   4 The question. Do people use the mullet method? It seems to me that 
> having a good line on the edge and planing down to that line is much 
> better..... 

Hi Scott, 

>how do you avoid tearing out when you put on a bevel across the grain?  

OK, maybe tearout is not the correct word. Blow out, splinters, divots ?
In difficult hardwood this occurs sometimes along the edges when using
a scrub and planing along a diagonal. The bevel is planed along the edges
"with" the grain first, then planed on the cross grain edges. No blow outs
at the ends. I use the bevels mainly for a visual reference. I can scub/plane
a lot faster without having to bend and squint at the gauge lines. Insurance
against blow out is secondary. The final plane strokes, along the grain, with
a #6 or #7 bring it to the final thickness.

Best,

Louis Michaud
Rimouski, Quebec 

I more and more find that my "techniques" simply compensate for my 
errors and inadequacies.

 I have lots of strips of hardwood with dowel legs that fit in my 
dogholes that I use  as stops.  I shim them so the top of the strip is 
the thickness I want on the stock and use them as a visual indicator 
(and a bit of a jig,).  Works well for me -- nice positive indicator 
and easy thing to sight on if needed.

 I mostly use a herringbone pattern going  in to the center for any 
substantial stock removel . This corrects  my unfortunate tendency to 
plane too much around the periphery and too little from the center-- 
Jeff Gorman's "dreaded droop" . It also mostly avoids blow out.

John Lederer
Oregon, Wisconsin

Louis Michaud wrote:

>OK, maybe tearout is not the correct word. Blow out, splinters, divots ?
>In difficult hardwood this occurs sometimes along the edges when using
>a scrub and planing along a diagonal. The bevel is planed along the edges
>"with" the grain first, then planed on the cross grain edges. No blow outs
>at the ends. I use the bevels mainly for a visual reference. I can scub/plane
>a lot faster without having to bend and squint at the gauge lines. Insurance
>against blow out is secondary. The final plane strokes, along the grain, with
>a #6 or #7 bring it to the final thickness.
>
>  
>

>=20
> Dear All,
>=20
> There's no way i use any "mullet", Brent.
>=20
> I'm interested in you working against a stop.  I've seen another
> galoot do this too, but it's never worked for me - the board skips
> over the stop, or slides sideways or something.  Maybe my planing
> method isn't smooth enough?  But how on earth does the stop hold
> the job when you're scrubbing (at roughly 45deg)?  - must be awfully
> annoying, no?!
>=20

When I'm doing this I clamp a side stop at a right angle to the=20
end stop, so I've got a 90deg corner that the work butts against. This
keeps the work from running away when going diagonally.=20

Jim Foster
Minnesota

>From:  T&J Holloway 
>
>On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 12:40 PM, Brent Beach provides some 
>amendments:
>>  1 I work against a stop, rather than between stops, so the board is 
>> free to move during planing. This requires that the ends be close to 
>> square to the length first. It also means that the sides have to be 
>> roughly square to the faces.
>
>	I was trying to avoid taking Ian Kirby's name in vain in this 
>discussion, but it seems to me that when dimensioning rough stock it is 
>a major advantage to be able to secure the piece in such a way that it 
>can be worked without worrying about it sliding around.

Seems I recall that Kirby has stated, in both books and magazine articles,
that he uses only a #7 jointer and a #4 1/2 smoother.  I take this to mean he
doesn't dimension rough stock with hand tools.

Planing against a stop with a #7 or #4 is a fine activity, as long as the
stock is already of a shape that will behave.  If you can get comfortable with
it you'll begin to view the vise screw as a pain in the ass.  That said, I
tend to use dogs when I scrub, so I occasionally spend time turning that
screw.  Klaus's idea to put a motor in it sounds great to me.

Pardon me for butting in.  Dean Roehrich.  Eagan, Minnesota.  If I hadn't
discovered bench planes--and a few other quiet tools that one might notice
while looking at them--a few years ago I'd...hmmm, well, my wife could put her
car in the garage; I'd have more money; my daughter would be sleeping in some
store-bought crib....

That's something, isn't it?  When your wife finally, quietly, gives up on her
attempts to drive into the garage.  Not to worry.  I know her better than you
do, see.  She's not going to put her rear-end on a cold car seat.  I think I
have it under control, though.  Our daughter will probably be climbing out of
the crib sometime this winter anyway, which means I kinda have a deadline on
when I must finish her bed, which means the cherry will be out of the way soon
enough.  I think.

Anyway, the cherry is rough cut.  To joint I'll knock down the concave side
with a scrub and a Stanley #7 with a blade that has a gentle radius (I think I
have it at about 6"-8" radius, which is far too aggressive; I don't have a
#5).  Then I joint with a Clifton #7 (when the Stanley was my jointer, I hated
it; hence, the Clifton, which I love).

I use winding sticks when taking the wind out of the jointed sides.  Someone
was asking about winding sticks--hey, just grab some straight pieces of wood,
maybe 2 feet long, 1 inch by .5 inches; I think they're easier to use when
they match in length and height; straight grain preferred, but as long as you
pay attention to the weather and make adjustments, don't sweat it.  Pick
contrasting woods, or paint one of them.  I began with two pieces of hard
maple, but everything became much easier when I swapped one out for a piece of
cherry.  Point is, it's just a couple of straight sticks of different colors
and that's exactly what anyone will think when they look at mine.

Thicknessing is different.  I might mark around with a gauge, then chamfer
down to the line, then scrub/shave until the chamfer disappears.  This works
well on small stuff.  When I have lots of parts or long parts I still joint
with planes, but I'll often thickness with a planer (tailed, benchtop).

Anyway, that's all I have to say about dimensioning rough stock.

Dean
roehrich@s...

Andy Wilkins wrote:
> I'm interested in you working against a stop. ...
> Does anyone else curse their "Veritas Wonder Dog" when doing 
> thin pieces?  

I inset a dado into my bench top, about 1/4" deep and 1" wide, and 
screwed an 8" long 3/4" wide stop into the slot. The 1/4" width 
difference leaves a little room in the front of the stop for sawdust 
and shavings to collect for easy removal. The stop is about 1/4" above 
the bench top.

The dado comes right out to the edge of the bench so I don't have to 
lean across the bench when planing. The top of my planing bench is a 
sacrificial piece of 2x8 western red cedar - softer than all the wood 
I work with. I intended it to be sacrificial, but 6 years on I am 
still using the first piece. Every couple of years I plane off the top 
few shavings to renew the surface.

For very thin stuff, I replace the standard stop by one that is thin 
enough to allow the stock to be planed.

When making the sliders for my plane iron sharpening jigs, where I 
have to plane down to 0.06", I use a stop that is about 0.10" above 
the bench top, and put various thickness stuff (usually scrapers) 
under the thin strips as the thickness gets near the goal. In this 
case I do not mark the sides of the stock, but use a vernier calliper 
as a mullet.

Use your hardest wood for a stop that only meets the work in 0.04" or 
so, and countersink the screws in the stop.

One problem with a thin stop is that very tall stuff tends to tip over 
the stop. I have found that just putting an intermediate sized piece 
of wood (piece of 2x4) between the work and the stop prevents this. 
This piece just rests against the stop.

Brent

On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 04:17 PM, Brent Beach wrote:
> I inset a dado into my bench top, about 1/4" deep and 1" wide, and 
> screwed an 8" long 3/4" wide stop into the slot. The 1/4" width 
> difference leaves a little room in the front of the stop for sawdust 
> and shavings to collect for easy removal. The stop is about 1/4" above 
> the bench top.

	An interesting solution.  I did something similar, by adding a board 
across the end of my bench, hanging on hanger bolts that are inserted 
horizontally.  The board, of the same maple as the bench itself, has 
diagonal slots by which it hangs on the bolts protruding from the end 
of the bench, secured by wingnuts.  Its height  is thus infinitely 
variable from even with the benchtop (ie, out of the way) to about 3/4" 
high, at the flick of a wingnut.  Easier to use than describe.  It's 
what I often plane against when not engaged in scrubbing or otherwise 
rough stock dimensioning.
	I thought Ken Greenberg had a picture of his version of this device on 
his website, but I can't seem to find it there now, and I don't have a 
website of my own to refer to.
		Tom Holloway

I said:
>> 	I was trying to avoid taking Ian Kirby's name in vain in this
>> discussion, but it seems to me that when dimensioning rough stock it 
>> is
>> a major advantage to be able to secure the piece in such a way that it
>> can be worked without worrying about it sliding around.

Then on Friday, August 29, 2003, at 12:53 PM, Dean Roehrich wrote:
> Seems I recall that Kirby has stated, in both books and magazine 
> articles,
> that he uses only a #7 jointer and a #4 1/2 smoother.  I take this to 
> mean he
> doesn't dimension rough stock with hand tools.

	You are correct.  And that's what I was trying to imply, without 
getting beat on for appearing to direct criticism at my betters.  I 
agree that it is good convergence of forces when you can accomplish 
what you want by planing only against a stop.  But I can't agree that 
such a system is adequate for scrubbing/rough dimensioning.  And what 
Galoot could agree that all you need is two bench planes?
		Tom Holloway

: -----Original Message-----
: From: Brent Beach [mailto:brent_beach@t...]
: Sent: 30 August 2003 00:18
: To: oldtools
: Subject: [oldtools] Re: Help with dimensioning stock

: I inset a dado into my bench top, about 1/4" deep and 1" wide, and
: screwed an 8" long 3/4" wide stop into the slot. The 1/4" width
: difference leaves a little room in the front of the stop for sawdust
: and shavings to collect for easy removal. The stop is about
: 1/4" above
: the bench top.

Hitching onto Brent's post (apologies for the pun), the following is
from 'Planining Notes' - 'Fundamentals' on my web site, where alongside
you will see a drawing of a temporary equivalent to Brent's device.

A particular frustration when planing wide work is the need to
constantly shift the job so that your plane always aims at the bench
stop. If you don't, the work will slew around and probably clatter onto
the floor, inevitably landing on a corner.
The back edge of the blade of the planing stop must, of course, rest
against the bench stop. Make the stock with a slightly tilted upper
surface. When fitting in the vice, you will need to press the 'stock'
downwards to form a bit of springiness that will hold it flat against
the bench top.

Jeff

-- 
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
Email: amgron@c...
http://www.amgron.clara.net

On 29 Aug 2003 at 19:42, T&J Holloway wrote:

> 	An interesting solution.  I did something similar, by adding a board 
> across the end of my bench, hanging on hanger bolts that are inserted 
> horizontally.  The board, of the same maple as the bench itself, has 
> diagonal slots by which it hangs on the bolts protruding from the end 
> of the bench, secured by wingnuts.  Its height  is thus infinitely 
> variable from even with the benchtop (ie, out of the way) to about 3/4" 
> high, at the flick of a wingnut.  Easier to use than describe.  It's 
> what I often plane against when not engaged in scrubbing or otherwise 
> rough stock dimensioning.
> 	I thought Ken Greenberg had a picture of his version of this device on 
> his website, but I can't seem to find it there now, and I don't have a 
> website of my own to refer to.

It's there, but not in an obvious place - projects other than furniture, 
which includes the bench.

http://www.calast.com/personal/ken/other.htm

It's the second project down, just below the Shaker stepstool, and 
there's a thumbnail of the stop Tom is talking about - click on it to 
make it bigger.

Unfortunately, one of the downsides of a poplar benchtop is that the 
hanger bolts used to attach this seem to not hold well at all. Any 
impact against the stop (even from positioning a board) will worsen 
the situation, and eventually you reach the "threshold of 
disengagement" and the thing falls on the floor. I have not had the 
stop attached in the new shop, but I really like the solution since I 
work with thin stock when I'm building what I want to build. (This 
hasn't got much to do with what I've built lately.)  So I'm thinking that 
some sort of threaded insert with a corresponding screw would be 
better for me. I kind of miss the little bugger :-).

-Ken

Ken Greenberg (ken@c...)
667 Brush Creek Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
woodworking page: http://www.calast.com/personal/ken/wood.htm