Lock Miter Bits for Router
Wallie
My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of owning
larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
7529 Router mounted in a table. I also have an assortment of hand power
tools. As such, normally simple tasks can become quite a challenge to
accomplish. A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
Has anyone used this router bit with success? I haven't used stock
thicker than 3/4" and was thinking of getting the Jesada Lock Miter
Junior.
Any comments?
TIA.
Wallie
tony
lot of metal flying around at a high rate of speed. I haven't had much
luck with it. American eagle also sells these and a set up block to help i
adjustment.
Good luck.
Wallie <wal...@earthling.net> wrote in article
<37B56776...@earthling.net>...
mattg
when i made my kitchen cabs i used
freud's drawer front bit. while not a true lock
miter, it worked quite well.
i would recommend a variable speed router
though. 20k rpm is a tad fast.
happy ww'ing
matt
Wallie wrote in message <37B56776...@earthling.net>...
Steve Knight
>Hello,
>
>My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of owning
>larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
>7529 Router mounted in a table. I also have an assortment of hand power
>tools. As such, normally simple tasks can become quite a challenge to
>accomplish. A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
>I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
>would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
accurate miter angles are easy with hand tools. get a good old miter box. or you
can make a shooting board to get them trimmed with a plane.
Records and tapes turned into cd's Save your vinyl and still enjoy it
Visit www.pacifier.com/~stevek/ for details.
Routerman
Wallie <wal...@earthling.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of
owning
> larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
> 7529 Router mounted in a table. I also have an assortment of hand
power
> tools. As such, normally simple tasks can become quite a challenge to
> accomplish. A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
> I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
> would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
>
> thicker than 3/4" and was thinking of getting the Jesada Lock Miter
> Junior.
>
> Any comments?
>
> TIA.
>
> Wallie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
master. Reminds me of going from high school algebra to freshman
calculus. If you're well experienced in routing, jig making, have great
control over your material preparation, have a 3HP router table that is
flat, with a high, square, adjustable, and straight router fence you
stand a chance. Cupped stock, less than acceptable milling, big sticks,
no fixture experience and an afternoon with this cutter, will
discourage many from ever woodworking again. Party pooper, doom and
gloomer, killjoy? Not a chance, just a realist with a lot of router
experience. A pity no supplier or mfg. wants to come clean on this one.
This tool is not for everyone. For more on routing see
http://www.patwarner.com (Router Woodworking)
>
--
Pat Warner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jack-of-all-trades
My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of owning
larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
How do you keep your neighbors from complaining when you use your
router? Or do you?
BOMB SQUAD. If I start to run...try to catch up.
rec.woodworking FAQ: http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
Wallie
chose the PC 7529....it's quieter than most in its power rating. I do my
noisy work out on the balcony on nice days and blend in well with the
soothing sounds of traffic.
Anyway, I got 2 nays and no real yeahs on lock miter bits so I'll scrap
that idea.
Many thanks for the useful advice.
Wallie
Kevin Singleton
You've gotten a variety of responses, but let me pitch in and say that it's
really not that difficult, especially if you can keep your stock thickness
pretty consistent. Once you've got a good setup of the fence and bit
height, keep the test pieces and mark them for future alignments.
Jesada's web page has good instructions for using the bit, and you'll find
that it works much better if you have a high fence, flat stock, and plenty
of test pieces. Back up the boards as you run them through, to reduce
tearout on the backside (especially prevelant when cutting across the
grain), and consider mitering the stock before running it through the router
bit, just to reduce the load on the bit.
It's really not that hard, but it's definitely not for everybody!
Kevin
Wallie wrote in message <37B56776...@earthling.net>...
>Hello,
>
>My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of owning
>larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
Jim Staley
You can have mine! I tried it once and cut off the tip of my right middle
finger.
Mike Lazzari
felt that it wasn't safe to use. The problem was that the shank was too
short to seat it properly in the collet and still have enough length to
correctly center the bit in the stock. The reason, according to Jesada,
is that there would be too much lateral force on a longer shanked bit
this large, and I totally agree. I believe that the concept is good but
a different design is necessary for this bit to work.
Mike
> A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
> I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
> would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
>
> Has anyone used this router bit with success? I haven't used stock
> thicker than 3/4" and was thinking of getting the Jesada Lock Miter
> Junior....snipped
>
RonJon
the quietest. With my other routers, I always have to use hearing protection,
but not with the 7529.
RonJon
Wallie wrote:
> Perhaps intended as a rhetorical question, but noise was a factor when I
> chose the PC 7529....it's quieter than most in its power rating. I do my
> noisy work out on the balcony on nice days and blend in well with the
> soothing sounds of traffic.
>
> Anyway, I got 2 nays and no real yeahs on lock miter bits so I'll scrap
> that idea.
>
> Many thanks for the useful advice.
>
> Wallie
>
> Jack-of-all-trades wrote:
>
> > wal...@earthling.net (Wallie) wrote:
> > My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of owning
> > larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
> > 7529 Router mounted in a table. <snip>
> >
> > How do you keep your neighbors from complaining when you use your
> > router? Or do you?
> >
> >
> > BOMB SQUAD. If I start to run...try to catch up.
> >
> > rec.woodworking FAQ: http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Larry
to keyboard and sputtered:
*>Has anyone used this router bit with success?
*
*You can have mine! I tried it once and cut off the tip of my right
middle
*finger.
You could never drive in Chicago....
<g>
Larry
Marc Ries
>I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
>would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
>
>Has anyone used this router bit with success? I haven't used stock
>thicker than 3/4" and was thinking of getting the Jesada Lock Miter
>Junior.
>
>Any comments?
>
Actually, like any complex bit, it takes a fair amount of time to set
up and the set up varies for each cut because of variances in
wood thickness and straightness, to name a few.
I am using the "medium" sized bit right now to make 5" quarter-sawn
white oak newel posts for a stairway. A very strong way to get flake
on all four sides.
Anyway, I found the Eagle "set-up" blocks to be a real plus -- they
got me started off quickly and I can use the opposite block to check
my new cuts. Naturally, once you get the setup right you can make
your own setup blocks.
I have found that unless things are perfectly set up, you will still
not get a"perfect" corner... i.e., still plan on doing some sanding,
milling, and filling if you want perfect corners that don't show
any lines. And poly glue's expansion seems to help fill up any
of the slop that there is when glueing up.
Marc Ries
Mayfilm
problems with it. It is not difficult to use, but good measurements will give
you nice, tight joints.
Ed Bennett
<snip>
>As such, normally simple tasks can become quite a challenge to
>accomplish. A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
>I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
>would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
First of all, making accurate, tight miter joints is definitely not a "simple
task". It takes some pretty precise woodworking to produce gap free results.
The problem is that any error, no matter how minute, will be multiplied by the
number of cuts that you make. For example, on a standard 4 sided box/frame,
1/64" error in each cut will result in a gap of 1/8" (two cuts on each end of
four boards is 8 cuts total). If you want your four sided frame/box to have no
more than 1/32" gap, then each cut must have no more than four thousandths
(0.004") of an inch error.
Just about all woodworkers consider making precise miters to be a "thorn" in
their sides. This degree of accuracy is very difficult to obtain using
traditional trial and error test cut methods. Some will claim that such
accuracy is absurd or impossible but they're wrong and it reflects poorly on
thier woodworking abilities, knowledge, and expertise.
>Has anyone used this router bit with success? I haven't used stock
>thicker than 3/4" and was thinking of getting the Jesada Lock Miter
>Junior.
Been there, done that! Yes, it's possible to be quite successful making
accurate miters using a lock miter router bit. However, the setup requires the
same degree of accuracy as any other method. It's not a magic "cure-all" for
automatic and easy miters. You will still need to have everything adjusted to
within thousandths of an inch to achieve tight, gap free results. If you don't
have a way of making precise measurements while setting up your machine, then
you can expect to spend quite a bit of time doing test cuts (unless, of course,
you get lucky!).
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
Visit my web site: http://www.primenet.com/~ejb
Steve Knight
>First of all, making accurate, tight miter joints is definitely not a "simple
>task". It takes some pretty precise woodworking to produce gap free results.
>The problem is that any error, no matter how minute, will be multiplied by the
>number of cuts that you make. For example, on a standard 4 sided box/frame,
>1/64" error in each cut will result in a gap of 1/8" (two cuts on each end of
>four boards is 8 cuts total). If you want your four sided frame/box to have no
>more than 1/32" gap, then each cut must have no more than four thousandths
>(0.004") of an inch error.
Well I have found it is simpler with hand tools then power tools. I can get far
more accurate cuts on my old stanley miter box and 30? backsaw then I can on my
tablesaw or chop saw. If I want to tune them up a little more a shooting board
will do it.
Knight's Toolworks & Custom Furniture Galoot Made Products
Records and tapes turned into CD's Save your vinyl and still enjoy it
Visit www.pacifier.com/~stevek/ for details.
Ed Bennett
>Well I have found it is simpler with hand tools then power tools. I can get far
>more accurate cuts on my old stanley miter box and 30? backsaw then I can on my
>tablesaw or chop saw. If I want to tune them up a little more a shooting board
>will do it.
My hat is off to you sir! If you can achieve tight, accurate miters by hand
(and not spend all day doing it!) then you have an extremely rare skill. I'd be
interested in seeing the sort of results you get. I've never seen an old
Stanley backsaw (or a new one)cut so cleanly. You must have a very steady hand
to keep it from wobbling in the cut. Or, perhaps we just have different
standards for what a good miter is.
Of course, I can cut the accurate miters that I mentioned previously in less
than five minutes on my table saw (all eight cuts, including setup) - no gaps,
perfect fit, all ends meet at a straight line at the point, corners match. And,
best of all, no test cuts.
PMF
owning
> larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
power
> accomplish. A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
> I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
> would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
If you're looking to make corner joints for boxes, drawers and such,
have you considered dovetails? I just bought Jesada's 12" half-blind
dovetail jig, which appears to be an exact duplicate to Porter-Cable's
jig. For less than $100 you could get the jig, a template bushing for
your router and the appropriate dovetail bit. If your patience goes
deeper than your pockets, you could also cut your own with a good
thin-kerf handsaw and a chisel.
Just thought I'd bring it up, but it'll only help if you're making small
(12") corner joints.
-Patrick
Gerry Glauser
with. Trying several different methods with short pieces of 3/16 stock, nothing came near
the quality from a shooting board and hand plane. I don't know about the 'ole stanley
miter box, but for cutting perfect miters in thin molding and other very small trim I used
the TS to make a tiny miter box, adding miter slots to fit a very narrow saw blade. I
simply wouldn't use any other method here, and the TS simply doesn't have the support for
pieces of that size, nor can it cut as cleanly.
So, in a wide variety of cases, I'll agree. The point being that no solution is universal,
and you need to understand the limits of any solution.
(You actuallly did that in FIVE minutes? I sure can't match that; not unless I get one of
those remote switches for the DC, as the walk's too far:-)
--Gerry Glauser
Steve Knight
>My hat is off to you sir! If you can achieve tight, accurate miters by hand
>(and not spend all day doing it!) then you have an extremely rare skill. I'd be
>interested in seeing the sort of results you get. I've never seen an old
>Stanley backsaw (or a new one)cut so cleanly. You must have a very steady hand
>to keep it from wobbling in the cut. Or, perhaps we just have different
>standards for what a good miter is.
you have not seen my miter box. it is about 25 pounds all cast iron the saw is
guided by ball bearing wheels on each side of the saw came with all kinds of
attachments even has a depth stop. and the thing is old. and still going strong.
with a diston 30" backsaw. When i make my planes I find it more accurate then
any other tool. no setting my miterguage or checking to make sure the saw is
right at 90 degree's. does take more effort though (G)
benne...@my-deja.com
>...
> If you want your four sided frame/box to have no more than 1/32" gap,
> then each cut must have no more than four thousandths (0.004") of an
> inch error.
> Some will claim that such accuracy is absurd or impossible but
> they're wrong and it reflects poorly on thier woodworking abilities,
> knowledge, and expertise.
Actually, Ed's your pre-emptive flame only shows that Santa needs to
send him a copy of Hoadley's book, "Understanding Wood." There's a good
chapter on wood movement, containing a table of expansion/contraction
co-efficients. It's apparent that Ed needs to spend an evening with
this chapter.
Ed's probably just gonna robo-respond to this post of mine, but for
others, the basic concept is that while all boards will expand/contract
in width, they'll hardly change length. Thus, a 45 degree angle will
not remain at 45 degrees as the board moves with normal moisture
content changes.
Ed, while you're looking at the numbers in the table on page seventy-
something and reading the text on how to use them, keep in mind that a
3/4" thick mitered board has to undergo an overall expansion of only
about half a percent (0.5%) for an absolutely perfect miter to result
in the 1/32" gap you dread so much.
It's clear that common woods in common environments have more movement
than this. Ed's flame to the contrary thus backfires completely,
showing his woodworking abilities, knowledge, and expertise to be
lacking, rather than those whom he ignorantly accuses.
No matter what method you employ in an attempt to achieve the perfect
miter, your success will be short-lived if you're using solid wood.
Period. Even carpenters understand this - it's why they developed the
coped joint. Either learn to live with the eventual imperfection of
your miters (Ed's overstated the case here too, but's that's a whole
nother point), or choose an alternate form of construction.
Ed Bennett
A while back I promised the group that I would ignore Bennett Leeds' messages
because they were predominantly inflammatory in nature and resulted in enormous
and absurd arguments. This message of his is yet another prime example of his
extreme efforts to goad me into yet another argument. It should be obvious to
every single person in the group that this is nothing more than pure, shameless
flame bait.
I'm going to continue ignoring Bennett. Nothing in his message is even remotely
difficult for me to answer. So, if anybody has a question about something he
has said here, then please send me email. If you think that the whole group
would benefit, post it here or let me know and I will answer completely right
here in the group (messages from Bennett Leeds excepted). In fact, here's a
response to email already received:
It would seem that Bennett's understanding of wood leads him to the conclusion
that no solid wood miter joints can survive typical expansion/contraction over
time. Yet, I've made many pieces (desks, tables, picture frames, jewelry boxes,
etc.) with mitered corners that have survived many years, even decades and
remain tight. Several of these pieces survived a move from the mild, humid
climate of the SF Bay Area to the harsh, arid climate of Boise, Idaho. They
have endured seven hot summers (with outdoor temperatures over 100F) and seven
cold winters (with outdoor temperatures below 0F). Outdoor humidity ranges
between 20% and 80% on a daily basis. Indoors, we run the heating and air
conditioning only in the evening so a daily swing of +/-20F is typical. One
piece of particular interest is a 7' x 3' dining room table. The laminated
Padduck top is bordered by 7" wide 4/4 SOLID Ash *WITH MITERED CORNERS*. Still
no gaps after 13 years and I don't expect any during the next 100 years!
I've seen miter joints on antique furniture that have survived and remain tight
long after the hide glue has lost most of it's strength. Perhaps Bennett should
try to explain why some miter joints survive and others fail. Maybe, in sharp
contrast to what he says, I'm not quite so ignorant in these matters. Perhaps I
really do understand wood movement and how design principals can be applied to
make miters that remain tight. It would seem that Bennett is the one showing
his woodworking abilities, knowledge, and expertise to be severely lacking
(especially when he mentions coped joints!).
Thanks,
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
Visit my web site: http://www.primenet.com/~ejb
benne...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7pdebl$803$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Frank Howell
benne...@my-deja.com wrote:
So what are you suggesting? 44 degree mitres? Measurements + or - 1/8 of an
inch? Why not gauge by eye and save the inevitable embarrassment of telling
people that you used rulers in your work. How do you determine what
accuracy level is good enough?
Frank Howell
benne...@my-deja.com
Ed, you've outdone yourself, and so much so that a new word should be
coined: You've reached new levels of self-contradictionness. As a
matter of fact, it's so easy to lambaste you over your claim that
you're not going to respond to my message in a post in which you
actually include a detailed response to my message, that I'm going to
let you slide for now, and just deal with your woodworking-related
response to my message. In the future, save the robo-response for when
you really have nothing to say, but feel the need to say something
anyway. Jeez.
"Ed Bennett" <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
>.....
> It would seem that Bennett's understanding of wood leads him to the
> conclusion that no solid wood miter joints can survive typical
> expansion/contraction over time.
That's not what I said. I was simply applying *your* own "standards to
what a good miter is" more uniformly than you. That it showed you as
applying this standard in contradictory ways is unfortuate for you.
> Yet, I've made many pieces (desks, tables, picture frames, jewelry
> boxes, etc.) with mitered corners that have survived many years, even
> decades and remain tight.
Clearly then, your prior claim that a change in dimension of only
0.004" would result in unslightly gaps is wrong. Either that, or your
definition of good joinery is not as you said. Which is it, Ed?
> Yet, I've made many pieces (desks, tables, picture frames, jewelry
> boxes, etc.) with mitered corners that have survived many years, even
> decades and remain tight. Several of these pieces survived a move
> from the mild, humid climate of the SF Bay Area to the harsh, arid
> climate of Boise, Idaho. They have endured seven hot summers (with
> outdoor temperatures over 100F) and seven cold winters (with outdoor
> temperatures below 0F). Outdoor humidity ranges between 20% and 80%
> on a daily basis. Indoors, we run the heating and air conditioning
> only in the evening so a daily swing of +/-20F is typical. One piece
> of particular interest is a 7' x 3' dining room table. The laminated
> Padduck top is bordered by 7" wide 4/4 SOLID Ash *WITH MITERED
> CORNERS*. Still no gaps after 13 years and I don't expect any during
> the next 100 years!
So, you've just proven wrong your prior statement that 0.004"
deviations in miter joints will result in 1/32" gaps! Great!
Let's talk facts. That wood moves in width with changes in moisture
content is a fact. You're not my worth digging up Hoadley to run the
numbers, but it's a fact that a 7" wide piece of ash will change in
width by more than 0.004" over the conditions you've described (but not
change in length). This is worse than the condition you were describing
in cutting the joints.
If we can believe what you say about your table, then either you're not
applying the same "tight" criteria to your examination of an assembled
joint (did you use device as accurate as the dial indicator you used
when making the joint?), or what you said about the joint gaps is wrong.
What you say you're seeing is probably the result of a number of things
which you discounted in your previous posts. First, your argument that
0.004" deviations will result in 1/32" gaps is a purely geometric
argument, and presumes that 3 of the 4 joints will be assembled flush
and true (not usual mitered joint frame assembly technique). Second, it
presumes that all 4 pieces of wood are otherwise perfectly dimensioned
and perfectly straight (not usually true). Third, your flame that
anything other than perfection without tuning or force is not "fine
woodworking."
However, what you say you're seeing in you table is a result of a
combination of these points. For instance, you were wrong to say that
errors in mitered frame joinery compound into only 1 of the 4 joints.
More likely is that the errors are spread out equally over the 4
joints, reducing the calculated gap from 1/32" to 1/256". Is it
possible that your table mitered joint gaps are 1/256" wide at some
time during the year? Yup. Can your eyes even see this in a joint with
finish applied?
If your 7" wide ash mitered joints aren't ever showing gaps even this
big, then either:
a) The change in humidity is not as you claim.
b) The gap dimension is not as you claim.
c) The construction is applying forces that resists the forces of
wood movement (eg, splines or biscuits).
Now, if you want to argue that using force to avoid gaps in pieces cut
0.004" off is OK *after* assembly but not during, be my guest.
> I've seen miter joints on antique furniture that have survived and
> remain tight long after the hide glue has lost most of it's
> strength.
And, you've seen lots of these, right?
That you've seen so many makes one wonder how those woodworkers of
yesteryear cut all those joints accurately in the first place, eh?
Obviously, making miter joints without precision-aligned power tools
isn't as hard as you claimed!
Of course, there are many antiques with miter joints that have gaps.
We've all seen them, even if Ed hasn't. And, there are NO antiques with
7" wide ash mitered joints and failed hide glue that don't have gaps.
> Perhaps I really do understand wood movement and how design
> principals can be applied to make miters that remain tight.
You heard it here first, folks. Ed knows the secret to making a miter
joint with failed glue that stays tight during changes in humidity.
Stick around and be enlightened (this should be good).
> It would seem that Bennett is the one showing his woodworking
> abilities, knowledge, and expertise to be severely lacking
> (especially when he mentions coped joints!).
Ed, you peflamed anyone who would say that cutting to a 0.004" accuracy
is "absurd." All I've done is describe how natural wood movement
results in inaccuracies far greate than that. The logical conclusion is
that it's not worth the extra effort to get better than that accuracy.
On the other hand, until I brought it up, you hadn't mentioned wood
movement in any of your posts. And even now, you foolishly chide me for
providing an example of how to cope with wood movement. Perhaps your
woodworking knowledge doesn't extend to the deriviation of the
word "coped" as in "coped joint" or "coping saw," eh?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ed Bennett
Gerry Glauser wrote in message <37bb9fc9...@news.cisco.com>...
>In general, yes. However, the best method is (as always) dependent on what
you'r working
>with. Trying several different methods with short pieces of 3/16 stock, nothing
came near
>the quality from a shooting board and hand plane. I don't know about the 'ole
stanley
>miter box, but for cutting perfect miters in thin molding and other very small
trim I used
>the TS to make a tiny miter box, adding miter slots to fit a very narrow saw
blade. I
>simply wouldn't use any other method here, and the TS simply doesn't have the
support for
>pieces of that size, nor can it cut as cleanly.
Yes, I can see this. 3/16" stock is pretty darn thin.
>So, in a wide variety of cases, I'll agree. The point being that no solution is
universal,
>and you need to understand the limits of any solution.
Agreed. When I think of making frames, boxes, tables, desks, etc., I'm not
thinking much about very thin or tiny molding. But, these situations do come up
and it's good to hear your solution for them.
>(You actuallly did that in FIVE minutes? I sure can't match that; not unless I
get one of
>those remote switches for the DC, as the walk's too far:-)
The biggest time sink in doing miters is the setup. Once the machine is
accurately adjusted, cutting the pieces goes very quickly. So, if you reduce
the setup to a simple (yet precise) measurement and eliminate test cuts
completely, you can easily cut a four (or even eight) sided mitered frame in
just a few minutes. It's a great demonstration, especially when you compare it
"side by side" with the trial and error test cut method.
As for the location of the DC, I can't help you there!
Ed Bennett
>you have not seen my miter box. it is about 25 pounds all cast iron the saw is
>guided by ball bearing wheels on each side of the saw came with all kinds of
>attachments even has a depth stop. and the thing is old. and still going
strong.
>with a diston 30" backsaw. When i make my planes I find it more accurate then
>any other tool. no setting my miterguage or checking to make sure the saw is
>right at 90 degree's. does take more effort though (G)
Sounds very impressive, a far cry from the vast majority of miter boxes
available today. From your description, it would seem to rival even the
Jorgensen setup. I'm sure that it's pretty accurate once it's set up. I still
have trouble imagining a backsaw that can cut that cleanly but I must confess
that I've never used or invested in a really good one. People say that the
Forrest blades cut glass smooth but I think the "hole-ly wood" demonstration
speaks volumes on this. At the trade shows, they cross cut a 3/16" to 1/4"
piece off the end of a Oak board and hold it up to the light. The blade cuts so
cleanly that the pores aren't crushed. You can literally see through the wood
(by looking through the pores). Now, that's a clean cut!
Bob Zajicek
> Ed, you've outdone yourself, and so much so that a new word should be
> coined: You've reached new levels of self-contradictionness.
Lookouts below!!!
> matter of fact, it's so easy to lambaste you over your claim that
> you're not going to respond to my message in a post in which you
> actually include a detailed response to my message, that I'm going to
> let you slide for now, and just deal with your woodworking-related
> response to my message. In the future, save the robo-response for when
> you really have nothing to say, but feel the need to say something
> anyway. Jeez.
Dive, dive, dive!!!
*clang* *clang*
Dive into the news stream!
<whoooosh >
Set Depth to 30 feet.
Avast!
<ping>
We got a ping off the DRONEARE!
<zzzzzzzzz>
Got 'im on the Snooze-Dar too! Arrrrr!
Range???
Out there... waaaaaaaaaay out there, Cap'n.
Up ferretscope!
Bring 'er around to 260d... steady on bow planes... bLeater off the
starboard bow!
Willickers!!!
Bearing mark! Ready forward posting clients!
FWD postin' clients ready, Sir! Standin' by!!!
Wait....wait...wait....
Post one!
> It would seem that Bennett's understanding of wood leads him to the
> conclusion that no solid wood miter joints can survive typical
> expansion/contraction over time.
One away Sir!
Post two!
> Padduck top is bordered by 7" wide 4/4 SOLID Ash *WITH MITERED
> CORNERS*. Still no gaps after 13 years and I don't expect any during
> the next 100 years!
Two away Sir! Both running true.... ..10.... 5...... 3.. 2,
*Boom* *Boom*
Both hit aft Sir!
Got 'im in the steerin' gear did we? Arrrrrrr... he'll be a goin' in bigger
circles will he?
Aye, Cap'n!
Prepare for the usual out-of-his-depth-charges....
> If we can believe what you say about your table, then either you're not
> applying the same "tight" criteria to your examination of an assembled
> joint (did you use device as accurate as the dial indicator you used
> when making the joint?), or what you said about the joint gaps is wrong.
... about Cabal conspiracies from BLeetward! Take 'er down!!!
Aye, aye!!! That last missed us a mile...
Very well. All ahead full!
Cheers, Bob
Steve Knight
>Sounds very impressive, a far cry from the vast majority of miter boxes
>available today. From your description, it would seem to rival even the
>Jorgensen setup. I'm sure that it's pretty accurate once it's set up. I still
>have trouble imagining a backsaw that can cut that cleanly but I must confess
>that I've never used or invested in a really good one. People say that the
>Forrest blades cut glass smooth but I think the "hole-ly wood" demonstration
>speaks volumes on this. At the trade shows, they cross cut a 3/16" to 1/4"
>piece off the end of a Oak board and hold it up to the light. The blade cuts so
>cleanly that the pores aren't crushed. You can literally see through the wood
>(by looking through the pores). Now, that's a clean cut!
What can I say they do not make them like they used to (G) Some of the features
I do not even know how to use.
lately it has not been perfect. there is a slight high side on a 45 degree cut.
It depends on the wood. I bet the saw needs sharpening. but I just use a file
and the square and get it exact. or it could be that the wheel bearings do not
get close enough to the saw (Wrong saw) but how would I know?? (G) sure cost
less then my accumiter that is not accu (G)
Ed Bennett
Hi Frank,
>So what are you suggesting? 44 degree mitres? Measurements + or - 1/8 of an
>inch? Why not gauge by eye and save the inevitable embarrassment of telling
>people that you used rulers in your work. How do you determine what
>accuracy level is good enough?
I believe in deciding how much gap is acceptable and dividing that by the number
of cuts to determine the tolerance for each cut. If you don't mind as much as
1/8" gap, then each cut on a square frame need only be accurate to 1/64"
(0.015"). If you want the "no visible gap" look, then you'll be working to
tolerances of about 0.004" per cut (as much as 1/32" gap).
Bennett Leeds takes what I call a "fatalistic view" to miters. He can't figure
out how to do them right so he declares that it's not possible. For example:
>> No matter what method you employ in an attempt to achieve the perfect
>> miter, your success will be short-lived if you're using solid wood.
>> Period.
When someone comes along with contrary information, claiming that accurate
miters are possible and that they can be made to last, he has no explanation
except to cast doubt on the person's integrity. He likes to cite all kinds of
references and facts to back up his position but he really has no personal
expertise to base his false conclusion on.
It's not unlike his position on most other issues. Some would say it's his
"modus operandi". He likes to argue and this Summer I've become his favorite
target. He follows my messages around the group posting flaming responses to
everything I say. Does he have any interest in miters or even making things
from wood? Probably not. And, he likely has no interest in helping anybody do
anything. I've expended a considerable amount of time and money on him only to
discover that his appetite for attention is insatiable and his intent is
malicious.
Wallie
advice and tips. What do you say...Let's put this puppy to bed!
Wallie
Bob Zajicek wrote:
> > benne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Ed, you've outdone yourself, and so much so that a new word should be
> > coined: You've reached new levels of self-contradictionness.
>
> Lookouts below!!!
>
> > matter of fact, it's so easy to lambaste you over your claim that
> > you're not going to respond to my message in a post in which you
> > actually include a detailed response to my message, that I'm going to
> > let you slide for now, and just deal with your woodworking-related
> > response to my message. In the future, save the robo-response for when
> > you really have nothing to say, but feel the need to say something
> > anyway. Jeez.
>
> Dive, dive, dive!!!
>
> *clang* *clang*
>
> Dive into the news stream!
>
> <whoooosh >
>
> Set Depth to 30 feet.
>
> Avast!
>
> <ping>
>
> We got a ping off the DRONEARE!
>
> <zzzzzzzzz>
>
> Got 'im on the Snooze-Dar too! Arrrrr!
>
> Range???
>
> Out there... waaaaaaaaaay out there, Cap'n.
>
> Up ferretscope!
>
> Bring 'er around to 260d... steady on bow planes... bLeater off the
> starboard bow!
>
> Willickers!!!
>
> Bearing mark! Ready forward posting clients!
>
> FWD postin' clients ready, Sir! Standin' by!!!
>
> Wait....wait...wait....
>
> Post one!
>
> > It would seem that Bennett's understanding of wood leads him to the
> > conclusion that no solid wood miter joints can survive typical
> > expansion/contraction over time.
>
> One away Sir!
>
> Post two!
>
> > Padduck top is bordered by 7" wide 4/4 SOLID Ash *WITH MITERED
> > CORNERS*. Still no gaps after 13 years and I don't expect any during
> > the next 100 years!
>
> Two away Sir! Both running true.... ..10.... 5...... 3.. 2,
>
> *Boom* *Boom*
>
> Both hit aft Sir!
>
> Got 'im in the steerin' gear did we? Arrrrrrr... he'll be a goin' in bigger
> circles will he?
>
> Aye, Cap'n!
>
> Prepare for the usual out-of-his-depth-charges....
>
> > If we can believe what you say about your table, then either you're not
> > applying the same "tight" criteria to your examination of an assembled
> > joint (did you use device as accurate as the dial indicator you used
> > when making the joint?), or what you said about the joint gaps is wrong.
>
Patrick H. Corrigan
table with very accurate set ups.
Wallie wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My shop situation (i.e.. apartment) precludes the possibility of owning
> larger basic WW tools. The heftiest piece of equipment I have is a PC
> 7529 Router mounted in a table. I also have an assortment of hand power
> tools. As such, normally simple tasks can become quite a challenge to
> accomplish. A constant thorn in my side is making precise miter cuts.
> I now found in a tool catalog, a "Lock Miter Bit" for routers which
> would seem to solve a lot of my problems.
>
> Has anyone used this router bit with success? I haven't used stock
> thicker than 3/4" and was thinking of getting the Jesada Lock Miter
> Junior.
>
> Any comments?
>
> TIA.
>
> Wallie
benne...@my-deja.com
> I believe in deciding how much gap is acceptable and dividing that by
> the number of cuts to determine the tolerance for each cut.
You can believe anything you want, but expecting that only 1 of the 4
joints will show the gap is not what'll typically happen in real life.
> Bennett Leeds takes what I call a "fatalistic view" to miters. He
> can't figure out how to do them right so he declares that it's not
> possible.
Yet another flame from Ed. He started this thread on the defensive -
even before I chimed in, pre-flaming anyone as incompetent who might
have the guts to publically disagree with him. It didn't stop me from
pointing out the errors in what he posted, so he steps up the flames.
Ed, you are doing what you promised you wouldn't do. If you're right,
you wouldn't need to flame.
> For example:
> >> No matter what method you employ in an attempt to achieve the
> >> perfect miter, your success will be short-lived if you're using
> >> solid wood. Period.
>
> When someone comes along with contrary information, claiming that
> accurate miters are possible and that they can be made to last, he
> has no explanation except to cast doubt on the person's integrity.
First of all, I provided at least three possible explanations for your
claimed success in miter joints: spline reinforcement, finish
obscuration, and lack of applying the same standards to the finished
joint as you do during assembly. That you need to ignore those in order
to flame me shows how desperate you've become.
> He likes to cite all kinds of references and facts to back up his
> position but he really has no personal expertise to base his false
> conclusion on.
When it comes to wood movement, I'll take Hoadley's written words over
your personal boasting any day, and I expect most reading here will too.
Ed, you've hand-waved away my non-specific references, so here are the
specifics. If you don't respond, or if you respond without addressing
what I quote Hoadley as saying on the subject, I'll simply point that
out and the argument will be done:
From "Understanding Wood," by R. Bruce Hoadley, page 84 (Chapter 4:
Water and Wood):
First, notice figure 1. It's a photo of two relatively narrow (probably
less than 3" wide) miter joints in read oak. The text reads:
"A classic problem is the mitered joint, which is shown in Figure 1.
The joint opens on the outside in summer humidity, and on the inside in
winter dryness. This one is familiar because it is out in plain sight."
Now, to put Ed's claimed necessary working tolerance of 0.004" into
perspective, let's look at what is required:
Ed's frame is 7" wide ash. Ash has a tangential shrinkage percentage of
7.8. Indoor humidity might range from 75% RH to 25% RH. With no finish
on the wood, the EMC (equivalibrium moisture content) will range from
14% to 4% (see page 87). Let's say Ed used a good thickness of varnish
or lacquer, and so the EMC range will be reduced - say from 10% to 6%
EMC. Running that through Hoadley's equation on page 76 yields:
Dimension change = 7 * .0078 * (10-6)/28 = 0.0078" or almost TWICE the
tolerance to which Ed claims one has to work the wood!
> {rest of Ed's flame of me snipped}
Ed Bennett
A while back I promised the group that I would ignore Bennett Leeds' messages
because they were predominantly inflammatory in nature and resulted in enormous
and absurd arguments. This message of his is yet another desperate but feeble
attempt to goad me into another pointless argument. It should be obvious to
every single person in the group that this is nothing more than pure, shameless
flame bait.
I'm going to continue ignoring Bennett. Nothing in his message is even remotely
difficult for me to answer - especially when he launches into mathematical
arguments, which he has always had difficulty with (see if you can find the
fallacy and mistake this one!). So, if anybody has a question about something
he has said here, then please send me email. If you think that the whole group
would benefit, post it here or let me know and I will answer completely right
here in the group (messages from Bennett Leeds excepted).
I received an email which said the following:
>Thanks for explaining how you built your table. It's something that the whole
>group should hear, especially since Bennett is claiming that you don't know
>what your talking about.
So, for the benefit of the group:
When it comes to miters, it isn't any more difficult for me cut them with 0.004"
accuracy or 1/4" accuracy because I use a precise setup tool to make the machine
adjustment. I choose to cut them to 0.004" accuracy (or better) so that the
maximum gap possible (if all the error accumulates at one joint) is .032"
(roughly 1/32"). Such a gap is virtually invisible in woodworking. I don't
deny the effects of humidity and temperature on the stability of wood. And, I
fully agree that an improperly designed and unfinished miter joint will
eventually fail (show a gap). But, that doesn't justify starting out with
poorly cut (inaccurate) miters. If you start with a gap, changes in humidity
(in one direction anyway) are going to make it worse. If you try to distribute
a larger gap equally among the four corners then you weaken all four joints and
make them more likely to fail. Properly designed and finished, an accurate
miter joint can be made to last through virtually all reasonable
temperature/humidity changes (no environmental test chambers please!).
Wood has three modes of dimensional stability with regard to changes in
humidity: longitudinal, radial, and tangential. The largest of the three, the
one that Bennett has quoted, is tangential which is typical of flatsawn boards.
Quarter sawn boards exhibit radial dimensional changes which are typically about
half that of tangential changes. Wood doesn't change *much* in length due to
humidity. But, in contrast to what Bennett has said, it actually does!
Typically, longitudinal changes are 1/10 to 1/12 of tangential. So, a flatsawn
board with a 12:1 length to width ratio will expand/contract roughly the same
absolute distance in both directions with changes in humidity. A quarter sawn
board with a 6:1 length to width ratio will expand/contract roughly the same
absolute distance in both directions. If the dimensional changes in length and
width are the same, then the angle of a miter won't change. Is it any surprise
then that my 7 foot table has a 7 inch border?
It isn't possible to use this 12:1 length to width rule perfectly. Even if you
built a square frame, the properties of individual pieces of wood aren't that
predictable. And, most frames aren't square. Also, unless you are joining
beveled edges, end grain on most miters makes for really poor glue joints. So,
you must always use additional reinforcement in the joint. The joints on my 7
foot table are splined in two directions. If you don't reinforce the joint
(there are lots of good methods) then it won't even be as strong as a butt
joint.
Finally, it's important to carefully seal the wood. Sealing the wood doesn't
prevent or really limit the absorption of humidity. It simply slows it down to
a rate that prevents damage. The first coat should be a penetrating sealer or a
very thin version of the top coat. My 7 foot table has a classic hand rubbed
"piano" finish with about 10 coats of poly. If you don't seal the wood then you
should keep it in a humidity stable environment or you will likely have trouble.
If you follow these three steps, your miters will look tight and beautiful for
decades to come. All of mine have!
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
Visit my web site: http://www.primenet.com/~ejb
benne...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ps1s1$der$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
<snip -o- rama>
benne...@my-deja.com
{flame snippage everywhere}
> I'm going to continue ignoring Bennett.
and then he writes in response to my post:
> Wood doesn't change *much* in length due to humidity. But, in
> contrast to what Bennett has said, it actually does!
I nominate this as double-double-speak of month: In a post where he
says he's ignoring me he's referencing me, and then he states a fact,
then states that the fact's wrong just because I said it.
This is a good one, even for Ed!
Let's be clear on longitudinal shrinkage. Hoadley says: "In practice,
however, we usually can forget about the longitudinal shrinkage of
normal wood." (page 73)
Ed further says:
> Typically, longitudinal changes are 1/10 to 1/12 of tangential.
Ed's off by an order of magnitude. For the ash under discussion,
tangential shrinkage (green to dry) is 7.8% (Hoadley page 74).
Longitudinal shrinkage, however is only 0.1% (Hoadley page 73). The
ratio of the two is close to 1/100, not 1/10.
> My 7 foot table has a classic hand rubbed "piano" finish with about
> 10 coats of poly.
How many coins did you bury in the plastic coating on your table? ;^)
The figures I gave in my previous post were, as indicated, assuming a
good coating of varnish or lacquer.
paddy...@my-deja.com
benne...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The figures I gave in my previous post were, as indicated, assuming a
> good coating of varnish or lacquer.
What, no shellac? :-(
O'Deen
--
Patrick Olguin
http://www.concentric.net/~odeen awesome shellac, so-so trolls
benne...@my-deja.com
asking me why I overlooked the *more* obvious flaw in Ed's logic:
"Ed Bennett" <e...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Typically, longitudinal changes are 1/10 to 1/12 of tangential. So,
> a flatsawn board with a 12:1 length to width ratio will expand/
> contract roughly the same absolute distance in both directions with
> changes in humidity.
That the ratio of longitudinal to tangential expansion is not 1/10 but
more like 1/100 was enough to discount Ed's rationale (unless you're
building 55 foot long tables!), and I stopped there. However, even if
Ed WERE right about the magnitude of the expansion ratio, his argument
still fails geometrically. Here it is:
> A quarter sawn board with a 6:1 length to width ratio will
> expand/contract roughly the same absolute distance in both
> directions. If the dimensional changes in length and width
> are the same, then the angle of a miter won't change.
Think about this. Ed is saying that with the same joint, making the
board longer or shorter changes the size of the miter angle! This is so
obviously wrong that even ASCII graphics suffice. Here's one board of
Ed's frame:
_______________________ A
\
\
\
\
___________________________\ B
Now, when the width of the board changes, points A and B move closer or
further from each other in the direction perpendicular to the board's
length (up and down in the illustration). Now, unless they also move
the same distance closer or further from each other in the direction
parallel to the board's length (left to right), the angle will change
from 45 degrees.
Ed's argument is that making the board longer changes the amount that
points A and B move relative to one another. This is completely wrong.
The amount that A and B move relative to one another is dependent on
the initial distance between A and B, the longitudinal expansion rate
of the wood, and the change in moisture content. With a longer board
point B will move more, but so will point A by exactly the same delta
amount. The relative initial distance between them is the same
regardless of board length, so making the boards longer or shorter will
have no effect on the joint's geometry.
However, making the board wider or narrower DOES affect the initial
distance between A & B, and so DOES have a proportional effect on the
joint's geometry. Hence the standard advise to avoid wide miter joints.
> It isn't possible to use this 12:1 length to width rule perfectly.
It isn't possible to use this "rule" at all. If it were true, then a
big enough frame with narrow members would show a gap on the inside of
the miters while a small frame with wide members would show a gap on
the outside of the miters (or vice-versa). This just isn't the case.
The following are the most likely explanations for Ed's claim that the
miter joints on his table show no gaps:
1) The movement is spread out among all four frame joints, not
concentrated in one joint while the others stay perfect.
2) Ed's not applying the same measurement criteria to his observation
of assembled joints as he is to members about to be assembled.
3) Ed can't see the joint clearly through those 10 coats of plastic.
4) If you glue the snot out of the joint (eg, dual direction splines),
and encase it in thick plastic (eg, 10 coats of poly) you can reduce
the apparent effects of wood movement, at least for a while.
But, contrary to Ed's claims, it has nothing to do with the length of
the frame members, nor the changes in board length due to moisture
content changes. I advise woodworkers considering miter joints to
consult any of the good literature on woodworking joinery before
designing pieces utilizing wide miter joints.
Rick Fox
<7qeihu$3q5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Sorry about the second response, but I received an email on this
topic,
> asking me why I overlooked the *more* obvious flaw in Ed's logic:
Well, Ed, since you have become so troll-resistant concerning
calibration, ol' Bleeds is going to try to flush you out by
insulting your woodworking. Please understand that he doesn't
attack you relentlessly because he wants to - he *has* to in order
to survive. If you just continue to ignore him, he will die a slow,
agonizing death.
Ed Bennett
>Well, Ed, since you have become so troll-resistant concerning
>calibration, ol' Bleeds is going to try to flush you out by
>insulting your woodworking. Please understand that he doesn't
>attack you relentlessly because he wants to - he *has* to in order
>to survive. If you just continue to ignore him, he will die a slow,
>agonizing death.
Thanks for the encouragement Rick. This is exactly what I plan to do. I have
absolutely no insecurity concerning my woodworking. I'm just as much a
perfectionist there as I am in everything else I do. I'll continue to use
miter joints in my projects as needed (in both solid wood and engineered
materials). I have no trouble making them so that they start out accurate and
stay that way for many years to come. I enjoy the look of precision miters
and other angled joinery. Virtually everyone who sees examples of them in my
work (like the table) really like it too. I'm certainly glad that I haven't
avoided miters. To me, difficult things (like accurate long lasting miters)
are a challenge. It's just not my nature to try and dream up excuses for why
difficult tasks should be avoided, and then go and criticize the people who
conquer such tasks.
As I peruse the pages of magazines and books, I see guys like Tage Frid, Sam
Maloof, Ian Kirby, Frank Klausz, John Kelsey, and others doing angled joinery
too (including miters) so I guess I'm not exactly alone in my opinion. In
fact, to say that miters and other angled joinery should be avoided would put
one's self outside of such good company. I can't think of a single book or
article which states as a general rule that miters should be avoided. It
would seem that such advice fits in the same catagory as Mr. Leeds' theories
on tablesaw alignment. ;-)
Maybe my 12:1 rule is bogus and I've been using it all these years not
realizing that it makes no real difference. So what? My miter joints have
still survived the test of time and significant environmental changes. Not
everyone likes a "hand rubbed" lacquer or poly finish but it's still very
highly respected in the world of fine woodworking. And, there are places
(like crown and base molding on a bookcase) where a much quicker, simpler and
easier oil finish will work just fine. I made several bookcases with just
such features and just such a finish that are almost as old as the table.
These have also survived the move from California to Idaho without mishap.
They were not an exercise in futility.
benne...@my-deja.com
> {snippage of Ed's usual flameage}
> Maybe my 12:1 rule is bogus and I've been using it all these years not
> realizing that it makes no real difference. So what?
MAYBE your 12:1 rule is bogus? Ed, your 12:1 rule is not only based on
you being wrong by an order of magnitude on a essential woodworking
concept (moisture related movement), it demonstrated an utter failure
on your part to grasp the geometry of a simple miter joint. A little
while back I made a mistake punching numbers into an equation. Ed
called me an "idiot" for that. One can just imagine the insults he'd
come up with to call someone who has made the vastly more gross and
elemental mistakes he has. ;^)
Ed, the "so what?" here is that you started off in this thread by pre-
flaming anyone who would dare disagree with you that the required
accuracy for a tight miter joint is 0.004":
"Some will claim that such accuracy is absurd or impossible but they're
wrong and it reflects poorly on thier woodworking abilities, knowledge,
and expertise."
I've since clearly and conclusively proven that wood will move by more
than this amount, whether it be in the time between the joint was cut
and glued or in service, so we can all judge what is "absurd" or not
and reflect on whose "woodworking abilities, knowledge, and expertise"
is lacking.
The irony of this is that you'll complain that I'm flaming you, when in
fact, it's YOU who are flaming anyone who dares to question what you've
posted. And when you finally have to admit you were wrong, all you can
muster is "so what?"
Well, that's Ed for ya.
Ed, the "so what?" here is that apparently you'll say anything to
promote your tools. In one post you'll say how hard it is to produce
tight miter joints using trial and error, only to follow it up with
claims of seeing large numbers of tight miter joints in pieces made
when trial and error was the only method available. You'll claim that a
certain accuracy is needed to have and maintain tight joinery, yet the
very antiques you praise were either not cut that to that accuracy, or
have been subject to wood movement greater than that accuracy (those
antiques were not, I presume, coated with 10 coats of plastic, eh Ed?).
It's apparent to me that you claim that these "absurd" tolerances are
required so that you can sell tools. When the truth comes out that such
tolerances are, in fact not required, either because the errors are
not, as you claimed, all compounded into only 1 of the 4 joints but
spread equally between them, or that the wood will move in service
more than the tolerance you're cutting it to, you deny the truth rather
than admit that woodworking without your tools isn't as hard as you'd
like to be.
Ed, the "so what?" here is that you chastise me for citing references
like R. Bruce Hoadley's "Understanding Wood" when the best you can do
is to name drop non-specifics that some famous woodworkers use angled
joinery.
Ed, the "so what?" here is that for one who claims "perfection" in many
things, you fail to grasp my use of the word "perfect" when I said:
>> No matter what method you employ in an attempt to achieve the perfect
>> miter, your success will be short-lived if you're using solid wood.
>> Period.
You claimed you had contrary information to this. You didn't. Instead,
you not only showed that you don't fully grasp basic woodworking
concepts and basic joint geometry, but that you don't understand the
meaning of the word "perfect." I continue to stand by my statement that
the perfect solid wood miter joint is elusive over time. Wood movement
will inevitably make it less than perfect. You claim to the contrary is
put into proper perspective by your admitted tolerance of gaps of 1/32".
Ed, the "so what?" here is that you intentionally falsely summarize
what I said on perfect miter joints to be a statement attacking all
angled joinery. This behavior of yours is simply shameful, and given
that you engage in it repeatedly, inexcuseable.
Ed, the "so what?" here is that you attack not only what I say, but me
personally, yet the ONLY rationale explanations for what you claim you
have done are what *I've* said (eg gluing the snot out of the joint and
layering 10 coats of plastic). Your latest admission that you merely
lucked out on all those miter joints produced using your
totally "bogus" rule belies your continued attacks on my "woodworking
abilities, knowledge, and expertise." It's time you dropped these
attacks.
Now, here is where I'm supposed to say that I'm sorry if challenging
the dangerously bad mistakes you've posted has hurt your feelings, but
surely such erroneous information should not go uncorrected, but I'm
not. The truth is that considering your continued personal attacks
against me I've quite relished our correspondence here, even though you
claim such correspondence hasn't occurred(;^)).
And, so much for "something that the whole group should hear,
especially since Bennett is claiming that you don't know what your
talking about." By now Ed has replied via email to his faithful,
admitting that he was wrong. He won't say that outright publically, of
course. He'll either pretend this thread doesn't exist or he'll post
one of his lying psudeo robo-responses.
Ed Bennett
are probably others wondering the same thing. So, I guess another
"robo-response" is in order.
Bennett is not trying to carry on an intelligent discussion. He has no interest
in helping others to produce accurate and long lasting miter joints. He is just
trying to incite an argument. He doesn't care about reason, logic or truth.
His only thoughts are of vengeance and I'm his target. I could easily answer
each and every "point" he raises in this message with compelling arguments.
But, if I do then I'll be feeding his acute narcissism and it would flare into a
huge psychotic flame war. His crap about "perfect miters" and "dangerously bad
mistakes" (watch out folks, that miter joint can kill you!) are prime examples
of how this lunacy progresses. I promised the group that I would not argue with
Bennett any more so I just don't answer. If you want to hear what I have to
say, then I'll send it to you in email.
As for miter joints, I've offered my solution for producing them so that they
are accurate (no gap) and long lasting. To back up my opinion I offered my own
experience at having built fine furniture with miter joints that have lasted for
decades. You don't have to be a Rocket Scientist to find the opinions of some
woodworkers who enjoy world-wide acclaim for their talent (as previously
mentioned: Tage Frid, Sam Maloof, Ian Kirby, Frank Klausz, John Kelsey). Just
go to the FWW web site and look up "miter" in their index. You'll find articles
from these and many others. In these articles you'll find some of the same
solutions I've offered (i.e. accuracy, reinforcement, and sealing against
moisture). When miter joints are properly designed according to these rules,
they will last a long time. How long? Long enough for Tage Frid to be
satisfied that they work. The 12:1 rule that I mentioned is my own invention
from many years ago and appears to be bogus (that's right, I have not trouble
publicly admitting when I'm wrong). My miter joints have survived in spite of
it.
If you do this article search, you won't find any articles promoting the same
fatalistic view that Bennett Leeds presents here. Not all solid wood miter
joints are "short lived...period". And, while perfection in any endeavor is
elusive (duh!), a long lasting gap free miter isn't.
Ed Bennett
e...@primenet.com
Home of the TS-Aligner
Visit my web site: http://www.primenet.com/~ejb
benne...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7qi1dg$lf8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
benne...@my-deja.com
> no interest in helping others to produce accurate and long lasting
> miter joints. He is just trying to incite an argument. He doesn't
> care about reason, logic or truth. His only thoughts are of vengeance
> and I'm his target. I could easily answer each and every "point" he
> raises in this message with compelling arguments.
This is vintage Ed: dish out unprovoked personal flamage and conclude
with an idle and completely false boast: You can safely bet your last
nickel that if Ed thought he had a toenail of woodworking logic to
stand on we'd be hearing about it. I cite as proof of this toenail Ed's
mentioning of Tage Frid and miters - as if Frid measures using a TS-
Aligner to the absurd tolerance Ed claimed was necessary, or as if I
ever said all miters were bad. Jeez.
I can categorically claim Ed is lying about his idle boast because he
has already admitted that his 12:1 rule was bogus, as I "pointed" out.
He has no "compelling argument" to that. He has no compelling arguments
to the other points I've made either, as his silence on them attests.
Whatever Ed may claim my motivations to be, the "truth" that I've
stated about wood movement causation and magnitude is indisputable,
the "logic" I presented about unnecessary accuracy remains uncontested,
and the "reasons" I gave to explain the very behavior Ed claims to see
in his own work stand without challenge.
It's ironic to think that after being corrected about something Ed has
misunderstood for over a decade his only response is to bite the hand
that educates him. While Ed has denigrated them, my contributions in
this thread may well save someone from making a mistake following Ed's
misinformation.
> His crap about "perfect miters" and "dangerously bad mistakes" (watch
> out folks, that miter joint can kill you!) are prime examples
> of how this lunacy progresses.
The lunacy is all yours, Ed. The first mention of "perfect" between us
in this thread was by you, on Aug. 17th. It's too bad you apparently
can't tolerate anyone besides yourself talking about perfection. As for
your inflated interpretation of "dangerous," I nonetheless wouldn't
want to sit in a chair that was designed and built by someone who
didn't understand basic woodworking concepts like wood movement and
joint geometry. Honestly, would you?
> I promised the group that I would not argue with Bennett any more so
> I just don't answer.
Ed, not only do you answer, you ALWAYS answer. Every time. Go look at
every post I've made in this thread - you've answered each of them with
one of your own. You quote from my posts - heck you even requoted my
entire post this time. Your claim that this discussion isn't occurring
is lunacy.
> ... The 12:1 rule that I mentioned is my own invention from many
> years ago and appears to be bogus (that's right, I have not trouble
> publicly admitting when I'm wrong).
Yeah, that's why you still cling to the characterization of "appears."
You haven't quite accepted it, have you Ed? If only you hadn't
consistently insulted me and my knowledge it might not have been such a
bitter pill for you to swallow.
>...
> If you do this article search, you won't find any articles promoting
> the same fatalistic view that Bennett Leeds presents here. Not all
> solid wood miter joints are "short lived...period."
It's only fitting to conclude with Ed's intentional misquoting of me
out of context. Ed would have you believe I said "all solid wood miter
joints are short lived," but that's not at all what I said, which was:
>> No matter what method you employ in an attempt to achieve the perfect
>> miter, your success will be short-lived if you're using solid wood.
>> Period.
Considering that it was Ed who first claimed to produce a "perfect
fit," back on Aug. 17th, it's sad, but fitting, that Ed would
demonstrate such a large degree of desperation as to intentionally
misquote me - especially after his first misquote on the same words was
already pointed out.