Survey time... Match-planing...

Re: What is the proper way?

Warren in Lancaster, Pa

>Larry, I'm glad you took a strong stand on this issue, because there have been times when the "match planing" technique was talked about as the only proper way. However, I often use a slightly different method than you (which may not be proper). I sometimes join two boards without any face planing at all. Then after glue up I go on to do a face, an edge etc. This is faster because instead of jointing the faces of two separate boards and then truing a third time after gluing, you only face joint the whole thing in one shot. A lot less checking with straight edge and winding sticks etc.

I have never recommended this method to anyone because it takes a good bit of skill. I hope there is no impropriety involved. I think any of these methods can be done skillfully and productively.

Re: a huge mistake, but maybe for other reasons?

ThomD

>"I can easily see how match planing doubles length errors. But the amount of this error is still pretty small, no?"

That has been asserted, but exactly how does this happen. Let's say you hold X tolerance while they are paired. When they are brought together, you have 2x in total, which is not necesarilly a bad thing. But exactly how does doing them in series magically reduce the eror to less than x on the bench and 2 x when brought together. When they are paired in a good situation, you will reduce any twist because it nets out, which is normally easier to deal with due to the wider base. I do not see any situation where you are actually building in more eror.

Re: In the zone

ThomD

>"Everything about hand work is about rhythm and getting in a zone"

Buddhism is the "religion" in which the practitioner may learn to be in the zone at all times, "Nirvana", or at least learns that it isn't based on how you use your woodworking tools, but can be found during walking meditation, or torture. You can be in the zone picking your nose.

What is disruptive is to categorize those states in which you can be there. Anyone who has ever seen "Swimming to Cambodia" by Spalding Grey, may remember that the whole piece works towards a point in which has a "perfect moment" So in summary for him to experience the level of peace a Buddhist might find anywhere: First the Vietnam war had to be fought, then the Cambodian genocide had to occur. Someone had to report it and write a book about it, and a movie had to be filmed on it. He had to travel around the world to act in the movie, and have a very special vacation. Kinda a tall order for one moment.

Re: And one other thing....

Wiley Horne -- So. Calif.

>Thom,

I learned a long time ago not to make statements about someone else's working methods. You obviously have a great system worked out for match planing. Clearly, people can get it to work for them.

I was reporting on my own experience. And to answer your question....if there's one board to joint, I throw it up onto the bench apron in one motion, one half turn of the vise screw, and one turn of the apron clamp for the off end, and I'm planing. Furthermore, I'm planing at a fine cut. But if I have two boards to be match planed, then I need to take some care getting them pre-aligned and clamped before I get them onto the bench apron. Now if the boards are 2 feet long, no problem--hold them in one hand and clamp them in the vise, like you said. If they're 4 feet long, then it's more fiddly. Further, if the two edges to be matched are not very close the full length of the boards, then there are some heavier cuts before I get to the fine cuts.

All in all, my experience is that doing two boards at once has quite a bit of managerial overhead. Clearly your experience is different, and you like what you're doing. So do I. So we're each saying our piece. I think there are alternative ways of edge joining, each of which can be made to work fine.

Wiley

Re: OK...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I agree, Thom, this is more or less how I do this task. Now I'm informed it's improper. Well, so be it. I get no pleasure from the constant checking for square I have to do when jointing boards separately; but when I plane them at the same time I get into the zone that you mention, it's more of a pure event somehow.

As to rejointing, it's no big deal to line up two boards.

The only thing that's a little inconvenient is that when I plane too much of a tilt into the boards, one of them tends to ride up on the other when clamped; so clamping on the top and bottom becomes more vital, but I've had to do this anyhow, so no harm no foul.

Pam

Yet another thing I forgot to mention

Wiley Horne -- So. Calif.

>Denis,

About as often as not, when the boards are matched to each other, I'm with the grain on one edge, and against the grain on the other edge. That's not fatal, because lots of times you can plane against the grain just fine, and sometimes there is reversing grain, so there's no choice. But. But. Most of the time, it's a free choice, so I'd rather be edge-jointing with the grain whenever the choice is there. Because edge jointing is also smoothing--if you have any tearout which reaches the outer portion of the edge, it's 50-50 that little hole is going to be on the seam of your table top or case side, and it'll light up like a spotlight when the finish hits it.

Wiley

Thin stuff & veneers

David Charlesworth

>While agreeing that thicker stock is easier to joint by planing each edge, match planing can be a real help when joining thin panels and veneers.

I clamp them perfectly flat between two boards or pieces of MDF and shoot, freehand or unguided, off my bench surface, which is quite flat enough. The planing techniques are identical to freehand edge jointing in the vice, or on the bench top. Except that you no longer have to think about squareness i.e. stop and / or through shavings according to whether one wants a sprung or straight joint.

Tearout is not an issue if the plane is set up for the timber being planed, refractory veneers can be done like this.

The clamping of these is made much easier by the removable tool tray in my bench design. A curved bearer can be used to cut down the number of clamps.

I think this demonstrates that it is difficult to generalize about technique.

best wishes,

David

Excellent advice .....

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>.... the sandwich.

Have you considered teaching this stuff?

Just teasing, David :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: OK...

ThomD

>I do it both ways. So basically I agree with everyone. At some point everyone has to plane a single board, and probably people profile more complex shapes in pairs unless they really love to cut down on the steps in clamping.

One of the things I try to avoid saying is what is harder to do than something else, since beyond a specific point it's either all easy, or all hard. Another kind of zone is in the middle where one has got the hang of it, but not quite got comfortable with it yet. In essence that is what a jig gets one. It takes one thing that is simple and extends it to a range of otherwise difficult things.

A lot of woodworking inteligence these days (not so much here) involves leveraging the easy stuff to get a hold on the "hard" stuff. So a plane makes it easy to cut a molding, but if one sticks it out long enough, maybe one learns carving (still waiting for that).

I've got an old technical dictionary ... from Rob

Ian (in Sydney, Australia)

>have just recieved a copy of Hawkins' Mechanical Dictionary (Lee Valley's reprint of the 1909 edition)

Match Plane � In carpentry, a moulding plane used to form either the tongue or the groove on the dege of match boarding, etc.

Match Boarding � In carpentry, boards fitted together with tongue and groove, or prepared to be so fitted

Matched � A plank or board having a tongue on one edge and a groove on the other, so that the edges will fit together and form a tight joint

so match planing is about planing the matching edges of two boards so you get a tight joint �� whatever technique you use to achieve it !!

mating ed

Re: What is the proper way?

Paul Kierstead

>I believe investing time and effort in match planing is a mistake.

You have to be talking about a different technique. The one I am talking about takes the time to turn over two boards and put them in a vise. The effort is not more then jointing a single board (or two boards separately for that matter). If you know how to joint an edge, you already know how to match plane; no new learning or investment in effort required.

Clearly it will not replace proper preparation of the boards, and won't replace knowing how to joint (since you need to know how to joint to be able to match plane). I don't see anyone saying that. Perhaps in the past you have had someone proposing it as some grand solution, but I don't see anyone here suggesting it replaces "proper" preparations; other people might have suggested that, but that doesn't mean everyone who does it is some kind of unskilled n00b who thinks match planing solves their jointing problems. You seem to have assumed some things that are not stated; you have brought a whole bunch of preconceptions to the table. You should try putting away those preconceptions before implying that people who do it do not know how to "properly" prepare boards, and introducing straw man arguments such as "it doesn't account for wind". No one in this conversation said it did.

1916 Woodwork for Secondary Schools

Stephen Shepherd in the State of Deseret

>Here are a couple of pages, with some interesting text.

Stephen

Re: 1916 Woodwork for Secondary Schools

Stephen Shepherd in the State of Deseret

>And the next page. ...common practice among practical woodworkers...

Stephen

Too small to read, Stephen.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Copy and zoom in with viewer!

Paul in NJ

>

Already tried that, too blurred when zoomed.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Stephen

Dan Donaldson

>If you have a problem getting them sized for posting, but big enough to read, e-mail them to me and I will fix them and put them up.

Re: Thin stuff & veneers

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Thanks, David, I'll remember this for thin stock work, which I've found to be a bit difficult.

Pam

Re: OK...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Sure, I've often jointed boards separately and all has turned out fine. I just find it easier to joint two boards together, once one gets beyond the orientation mistakes inherent in this process.

Pam

Bigger image 

Dan Donaldson

>

The other one 

Dan Donaldson

>

Thanks, Dan

Stephen Shepherd in the State of Deseret

>

Re: And one other thing....

Paul Kierstead

> ... and one turn of the apron clamp for the off end, and I'm planing. Furthermore, I'm planing at a fine cut

This may help explain one of the differences between different people experiences. For me, I typically use the "match planing" method on boards with a quite rough edge and start with a more rank cut (typically with a jack). Perfect initial alignment doesn't matter quite so much then, either. If the boards was pretty close to jointed already, I may not do both simultaneously, but that would mean I have already invested some effort into the boards.

I'll definitely agree that long boards can be a PITA for clamping. Admittedly I work mostly on smaller scale stuff, which can account for differences as well. In addition, some here (I don't know about you) use a power jointer for all the rough work and only "finish" the joint with a hand plane, which certainly can affect one experiences.

This is why I tend to get hot under the collar when someone tends to decry others methods when clearly people have different needs and styles. I wish more were like you and tolerant of other methods and tried to understand what advantages each one has, rather then just knocking it.

Re: a huge mistake, but maybe for other reasons?

wilbur

>Hi Thom,

Regarding the "double the length error" issue when match planing:

First of all, I think we are in agreement that this "error" is a non issue when it comes to match planing. But I think that the rationale behind this goes like this.

In getting a board to length, often you cut the board to length, then use a plane to clean up the edge. The amount that you take off of your board with the plane introduces a slight error in the intended length. Since in match planing, you are planing two surfaces, that doubles the error.

Now why this is worse than what I do, which is plane each edge separately before gluing, I'm not sure. But even if it is "worse", it still is a non issue as far as I can see.

Re: a huge mistake, but maybe for other reasons?

MikeW

>Nah, it is that regardless of the length of the board, any hollow induced (if there is any) is doubled. So if there is 5 thou of hollow down the length of a match-planed pair of boards, it really is 10 thou, and so on.

It's only an issue if the hollow created (if any) is greater than desired--and great enough that undue clamping pressure is required to correct it (which is what some people do) or simply requires the edges to be reworked so they close without undue pressure being applied.

Another reason I don't match plane often is because I do not often join boards of the same or similar width. This then means clamping them together is made more time consuming than I desire to take. The way I do clamp them together is simply set the edges down to be match planed directly on my bench, clamp them as needed, flip them and stick one end in the vise. Not a lot of time, and it does facilitate reclamping if there is any reason.

I often check one board to the other by simply setting one already done on the edge of the one I am working on to check the fit. I avoid using straight edges for this. For me it is the faster and most assured method. But that's simply how I work.

Take care, Mike