I like the potentials of prepping my own wood. Been doing a bit of studying. The basic procedure as I understand it, is:
1 Use jointer to flatten one wide side
2 Using that side as a reference against the fence, use the jointer to
square up and flatten one edge
3 Use thicknesser/planer to smooth other wide side parallel to
first
We now have three flat sides square to each other
4 Use Table saw to cut to width and square up final side
By hand the process is basically the same, but a lot more work and skill.
My question is if the planer is good enough to smooth and square up the third side and the table saw is good enough to square up the third side; why is the jointer necessary. I ask because I’ve talked to a few ww’s you do nice work and say they rarely ever use the jointer. Wouldn’t the following work as well?
1 Use the planer to make two parallel sides at the thickness desired
2 Use the table saw to square up first edge
3 Use it again to square up the other edge to width
What am I missing?
Seems like the jointer is the most expensive tool next to the table saw. Personally I’d rather put the money into the saw. Also, there’s the space issue; where would I put the 12″ jointer(never 6″! As big as you can). Why are jointers so much more expensive than planers?
For now I’m getting into hand planes.
I’m sure this has been asked before, I did try the advanced search. Thanks.
Replies
The jointer is required because it will make the initial side flat. Then,, by running it through the planer with the flat side down, the planer is making the second face parallel to the flattened face. Now you have a board which is nice and flat, as well as properly thicknessed.
The jointer is a tool that is designed to make the edge or face that it is working on flat and straight.
If you were to take a rough sawn board with a little cup or twist to it, and run it through your planer, flip it over, and run the other side through, you have a board with two parallel sides, both with cup and twist. The jointer removes the cup and twist from the first face.
Oh.
So the planer copies the surface of the first side. I assume the precision would be determined by the number of cutters.
The jointer only flattens the face or makes the edge straight. The reference face is the outfeed table. The number of cutters determines the smoothness of the cut relative to the feed rate but has nothing to do with the accuracy of the cut. The planer cutterhead is above and parallel the bed and it references from the flattened side running against the planner bed.
<!----><!----> <!---->
You really need both tools to mill lumber totally by machine effectively.
The planer is a parallel thicknessing machine. That's it. I guess you could say that it copies, or parallels the side which is face down in the planer. Therefore, if the board isn't prepared for a flat reference surface, then you won't get a flat, true board out of the planer.
W,
"The planer is a parallel thicknessing machine".
This perfectly illustrates why the American naming conventions for the two machine-functions involved is misleading and has caused confusion about plank flattening as well as the proliferation of ill-matched machines.
What is termed "planer" in America (a "thicknesser" in fact, as you point out) does not have an inherent planing (i.e making flat) function. It has an inherent thicknessing function which will also copy the profile of the side opposite that being cut. As Napie point out, it will happily copy twist and bow as well as any flatness.
In Europe the American "planer" is more correctly termed "thicknesser".
The American term for the machine that produces that initial flat reference face is "jointer". This too is a misleading term as it supposes that the primary or inherent function of such a machine is to make edges ready for jointing.
But unless there is first a (planed) flat face to use as reference agin the "jointer" fence, the "jointer" is unlikely to produce a straight, square edge. The first operation of the machine is to plane a flat face. Therefore it is more correctly termed "planer" (as in Europe) rather than "jointer".
One consequence of this confusion in terminology is that "jointer"makers provide machines with skinny tables of only 4 - 8 inches wide. They have assumed that because it's a "jointer" it should be configured primarily to machine plank edges. This limits the ability of such a machine to flatten the first face of a wide plank, which in turn means that the "jointer" cannot really deal with the edges properly.
Meanwhile the American "planer" often takes planks of 13 inches wide. But there is no point in having a 13 inch plank-width capacity if the "jointer" can only flatten the first face of (at most) an 8" plank.
In America there are usually two machines made and sold as separate things - the "jointer" and the "planer". In Europe it is more usual to have a planer/thicknesser - one all-purpose machine. This not only saves space and money (one motor and machine footprint for all functions) but automaticaly provides a planing width capacity to match the thicknessing width capacity.
***
From this side of the Atlantic, the situation seems unnecessarily gothic - especially when all the machine capacities are also measured in Imperial. :-)
Lataxe
Great! Makes sense. Now how do I get a European planer? And how much do they run. I also wondered why the American "planer" has 50% more capacity than the more expensive "jointer". Finally, why are the American jointers so much more expensive than the "planers'?
Edited 3/19/2009 10:00 am ET by habilis
Must be a rookie.
A European planer isn't any different than an American planer. The initial jointing of the face of a board is called "facing" not jointing if you want to get the term correct. The facing process takes out the twist, cup, etc so when you plane or thickness you end up with a parallel surface. Straight "planks" are much easier to work with.
The subject of combo/ jointer planers has been covered in the hobby mags for years. Sounds as if you are confusing the term European planer with combination planer/jointer. There are typically ads for Robland, Laguna, Hammer Felder, Rojek, Minimax in all the magazines as well as numerous reviews.
A jointer costs more to make than a planer hence the higher cost for a 12 " jointer. Planers are much simpler machine to make.
Do you realize there are more choices in machines than there were 30 years ago and prices are actually cheaper today than they were 30 years ago for many of these machines. Due to imports of course.
Edited 3/19/2009 12:31 pm ET by RickL
Edited 3/19/2009 1:34 pm ET by RickL
Actually, I was responding to to Lataxe's use of the terms. Now, while I have no problem being called a rookie, I don't think he fits. Kinda figured cost of production might be a factor, to be more specific; what makes it more expensive to make?
Edited 3/19/2009 1:56 pm ET by habilis
A planer is a cutterhead, adjustable table and some powered rollers. A jointer has to have precisely machined tables and is typically cast iron. A few smaller ones are aluminum. If they could make it cheaper they would.
Ryobi pioneered the inexpensive lunchbox planer over 20 years ago, without which, few woodworkers would have a planer today. Before that there was the Belsaw planer which in the 70's was $500 dollars. Production is part of the cost. There's enough jointers being made so that keeps the cost down. It just costs more to make a jointer.
Rookies are found in all fields, professional and amateur. Amateurs are in it for fun. Professionals earn their livlihood from it.
Thanks.
Make my living doing finish carpentry, additions, remodeling, general construction. If I can't do it with a plane, etc. quickly, its better to have a specialist fabricate it. This i all fun.
I'll always be a rookie, just like the people who do work I admire.
Edited 3/19/2009 3:27 pm ET by habilis
Just to add to what Walnutz and other have said, it's important to feed your lumber with the grain. If you go against it, you will often get chipping and tear out. Most lumber you see that is already planed has been put through an industrial double sided planer. One face is often chipped out in places. They don't use a jointer to flatten first, that's why the pre-surfaced lumber is often wavy, twisted or warped. There are also a lot of knife marks since they feed at a high rate. Being able to dress your own lumber allows you to flatten, straighten, get even thickness and an improved surface. The boards in lumber yard are seldom equal thickness throughout, which causes problems when trying to fit joints.
If you go to the planer after doing one face on the jointer, then you will have the choice of running either face against the jointer fence for straightening the edge, thus allowing two options to run with the grain instead of one.
When you use a machine with a fence, like the table saw or a router table, you get a more accurate and safer cut if the edge is nice and straight. A jointer is an important machine for woodworkers, although, there are other ways to straighten an edge.
With traditional hand tool methods, it's not necessary to surface your lumber to an even thickness. It's often not necessary to do anything to the surfaces that don't show. Unlike using a machine that references from both faces when cutting joints, you do all the referencing from the face that shows. When you reference from both faces and the stock varies just a little in thickness, that difference is multiplied by two. Look inside and underneath antiques and you will see the surfaces are rough and uneven. Some are just hacked out with an ax or drawknife. It's a different approach and thought process than using machines.
H,
I know what you mean when you say:
"With traditional hand tool methods, it's not necessary to surface your lumber to an even thickness. It's often not necessary to do anything to the surfaces that don't show".
But I think this is misleading, as it's not so much non-show faces that can be left unplaned/thicknessed but faces that are not needed as reference to the size or shape of another component in the piece. I find that having evenly thick, square components makes life a great deal easier when it comes to constructing/fitting internal components such as drawers or shelves.
Not to say that the old-fashioned methods are wrong or irrelevant. But the consequences of working with less precision are that different experiences and skills will be needed to make parts fit well; and the non-precision approach greatly affects the final look of a piece.
Some like imprecision (I do, in some types of pieces) whilst others like "crisp" (I do, in certain kinds of pieces).
Lataxe
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled