*
Can anyone tel me why the band saw and the table saw have differant heights? Heck, why is the table of my shaper at a differant height than my joiner? Every time I use one of those piece of equipment I need differant hieght infeed and out feed tables! When you run a couple of hundred bd. ft. at a time it’s not just a minor inconvienance.
Evan if I were doing one piece on the band saw, I wouldn’t expect to be able to hold both ends of a 8 foot bd. as I saw the piece, (let alone some of the 16 or 20 foot pieces)
While I have mastered the skill of the 10 minute infeed and out feed tables, It still bugs me that I can’t do it once and be done with it!
DON’T, get me started on how dumb planers are!
Table top/portables are very smart. The bottom is a fixed height and the motor etc. rides up and down to remove the material as needed. It doesn’t matter what the thickness is. once you set an infeed/outfeed table you don’t need to make any adjustments.
The rest of them are so stupid! every pass needs a differant in/outfeed height. While I shove shingles in under the 10 foot rollers to make those height adjustments, if they are a little off then it’s too easy to get snipe.
That’s fine as long as the wood you plane is one thickness, what if you go from 4/4 to 8 inch thick stuff? then you need to come up with a completely differant height set of saw horses or cut them off lower and put blocks under them for the taller work height needed for thinner stock! If stationary planers were built like portables you wouldn’t have the constant adjustment.
drill presses too are poorly designed but then I’ve ranted enough, the real problem is that we no longer build tools in America. If we still did then someone would recognize how badly desined these things are, build a better set of tools and then let the rest of the world copy us…..
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
*
Frenchy I am not sure of your shop layout but my is a little on the smaller side. I made all of my tools portable and the same height. I am over 6' tall and it made it lot more comfortable to use them lot and to allow for few out feed tables.
Also there are several planners that make stationary beds.
*Tool heights are largely driven by ergonomic considerations relating to proper body position to feed stock and observe the work in progress. The table saw handles large workpieces without needing visual guidance. Lower works. The Bandsaw usually handles smaller workpieces, and the cuts are more accurate when your eyes can see them better. Higher is better. Good point on planer design though. I think the basic industrial planer design came from a time when they would be fed by two workers - not needing infeed and outfeed surfaces. There are reasons for all these things, and the smart companies figure out when to shift their designs to keep up with new working styles.Regards, Dave
*Dave is right about the different uses of different machines creating a need for a variety of heights.As for the planer bed issue, it's all about accuracy. Think of it, how much harder would it be to keep a cylinder head parallel to the table if it were required to run up and down a track with a motor hanging off one end? what about feed rollers and chip breakers, would those all have to run on the same tracks? I have a 25" planer, with two giant rows of rollers, a four knife cutter head, and a segmented chip breaker, with a 10HP motor on it (maybe 7.5, I forget)! I don't want those things to move at all, I like knowing that they've been set and that I can trust them.Frenchy, this is just a guess, but I suspect that you are doing things on small ww machines, that would be better suited to the type of machines one might find in a sawmill. You're pushing some big wood through cabinetmaking machines alone. They just weren't designed for that...BTW, just for info, I feed 16' boards through my planer and take them out the other side without using any tables all the time. I get no snipe (flat table - no rollers), and the boards don't fall on the floor because the planer holds them while I walk around. SB
*I have resawed a lot of 6"x12" birch timbers over the last couple of years and I call on a few buddies to give me a hand. I cannot imagine trying to man handle a 20 timber by myself. One or two buddies make a big difference and are far better than a out feed tables.Scott
*The bed on my planer, and I guess on most planers, raises and lowers. I've often felt that it would be nice if the bed stayed in a fixed position so I could build long wooden infeed and outfeed tables. I think the Delta belt drives might have fixed beds? But, I'm not sure of the practicality of having the motor set on top.My bandsaw sets on a wooden stand that I made. I made the height such that the BS table would be at a height I was comfortable with. It's fairly high cause I do precision scroll work. (I'm 6'1")My TS is on a 1.5" thick dolley with 2.5" wheels. That puts the table at a height that is comfortable for me. If I had a larger shop, I would make the TS stationary and construct an outfeed table for it. I think each person or shop has to consider the ergonomics for their needs and arrange their tool heights and positions to best fit their needs and limitations. Especially if they do a lot of repetitive assembly line type work. I do varied work and spending a lot of time designing the shop layout might be counter productive. The overriding consideration in my case is shop size.
*All this thread makes me belly laugh remembering the first Inca tool I stood alongside (I'm 6'3") back in the 50's, then I laugh again about the first Asian tools brought over here.....they started shipping them on pallets with extra 8" x 8" timbers, mahogany, I think, so we'd have material ready to jack them up to comfortable working heights. Even the European tools had 24" to 26' top heights! Actually, I like the height of my Delta bandsaw-right up there where I can do the close work, and W-T table saw is perfect. I could see where one would want a resaw-bandsaw table 8" to 12" lower than my Delta, though!The desparity of machine tool heights will nonetheless continue...get over it!John
*Ok I have a 33x55 foot shop, but it's jammed with stuff so I have little open space. When I do something it requires making a way to handle it because I'm just not gonna run back and forth the 300 or 500 times it takes to make it. I suppose if your just making a little knick knak or dohicky it doesn't matter because you spend most of your time setting up and very little actually doing something, (sawing, milling, planing, etc.) haven't you ever built something that's too long for you to handle both ends of? haven't you ever planned more then a couple of boards at a time? Infeed/out feed tables are the way to do it, but when everything is at random heights you are constantly making differant tables. Both of my portable Delta planners have a fixed base, easy to set up for. If you look at how they do it, it makes real sense. Now why can't my 20 inch planner do that? Why can't the motor, drives, knives etc. be on the bottom and the rollers be on the top? Skim the bottom not the top? Easier to control dust and shavings, less chance of clogging pulling things down then up and over. Table saw works that way, why not a planner? why the differant heights from a joiner to a planer to the table saw. They are all from the same MFG. why can't they settle on one height? If they want to make some giant 6 foot high guy their standard, fine! or they could make it for the 5 foot high guy, whatever? I don't care. Just pick a height. It makes about as much sense as having differant heights for your kitchen cabinets, or a workbench with two or three levels built into the top.....
*Scott, Try to get someone at a saw mill to plane 12x12 timbers that are 20 feet long, It ain't gonna happen, they won't do it. They don't have the equipment. besides how long does it take a piece of white oak that size to dry? (hint, the answer isn't 12 years) so do you think they'd leave something like that sit around until it's dry on the off chance someone was wacky enough to want it? Besides, what if you need to make that timber 12" x 11 7/8's" and need to plane off an 1/8th? I've never tried putting something like that in one end and walking arounf to the other side, do you recommend it? It will fit thru my 20 inch planer though if I set up infeed rollers and outfeed rollers. As will every other timber I'm using.. I don't use the wrong tool to do a job, (sure way to get hurt) unless there is absolutely no other way. OK so Mafell will sell a 12 inch portable power planner for $4800.00 I really doubt you'd spend that when something a third the price will do the job..
*Frenchy, you are one helluva character. what you're doing is way outa my league - I don't know what machines you should be using, but I sure am glad I ain't your helper. You'd better post pics of this house sometime soon, we're gonna start thinking you live in some bizzare oversized fantasy land...SB
*Scott, yeh, I'm kinda figuring that out. I mean nobody has ever built a house this way. If I was just building a house I should be over on the fine homebuilding site. but they just bang a bunch of parts together and call it a home once they splash some paint and curtians around. What I'm doing is much more like building furniture, on a giant scale. Sure there are plenty of timberframe homes being made, but how many do you know of are timberframed inside and out? That is timberframe panels and timberframe? Most timberframes are built with fir or something, seldom ever with white oak and never with black walnut. I don't know of anybody with a 25/12 pitch roof so I can't get any kinda advice over there. I wish someone would come by and post a picture of the house as it progresses, but it ain't gonna be me. How about it? anybody in the area wanna take and post some pictures?
*frenchy, there has been a lot of thought put into most of the woodworking machinery out there today, and there are so many reasons as to why they are built the way they are that i won't even try to list all of them. you wouldn't want a TS to kick a board back into your face, you wouldn't want to bend over just to use your bandsaw. when your designing a tool, you have to think about a lot of things, such as ergonomics, accuracy, manufacturing processes and so while you might think they are poorly designed, there is a lot of thought that goes into making these tools before companies put down millions of dollars to start producing them. i don't know what your shop looks like and i don't know if your using the right tools for the job. for most of your tools, why don't you just make platforms so that they'll all be at the same height. try this and see how comfortable your tools are. because the table on your planer moves you have a different problem all together. all the big planers have moving tables for at least one reason, accuracy. with the size boards that your using, you need a tank, something like an oliver thats made of solid cast iron and won't budge even with boards like your using. the best way i've found to prevent snipe is to lift the boards up when they come in and when they come out. and a 20' board give you lots of time to walk around to the outfeed end.
*Ajepson, I think most shops are like mine where you have to move something around to do big whatever. When you make doll house furniture or knick knaks you don't need the room to do big stuff. but I've seen pictures of beds, entertainment centers and the like posted here and in the magazine. they need a lot of room to build. If you build with 8 foot boards, you need 16 feet plus the length of the equipment. So you'll need 16 feet for the table saw 16 feet for the planer 16 feet for the joiner, 16 for the bandsaw, erc. Unless you have a shop that used to be a high school auditorium, you need to move stuff in and out. Building tables or stands to adjust the height won't work in those cases. Again maybe if you have that gym for a shop you could build a infeed and outfeed table that can be tossed into the empty corner for everything you do. The rest of us either muscle stuff or build tables to save our backs. can you explain why it's more accurite to move the table on a planer? So far everyone has said that. frankly I don't think that's the case. If we mounted the motor to one spot, spun the cutter head and feed from the bottom instead if the top and adjusted for thickness with the top wouldn't we achieve the same thing? Kinda a joiner with a holddown clamp if you would..Only instead of a hold down clamp it would be hold down rollers. Then the only moving part would be the rollers. How can moving that whole assembly be more accurite? My planer weighs 800 p[ounds or so and still I can't see putting a timber that weighs close to a thousand pounds into one end and walking around to the other and waiting for it to come out. Somehow I think that a whole lotta weight hangin' on one end of something affects things..Don't you? I'll grant you if you're 6 foot tall or taller a band saw is nice at the height it's at. bending over and looking at a line is awkward, but then why aren't the rest of the tools at that height? why is it awkward to bend over to look at a bandsaw line when it's not to look at a table saw? I think that there's too much monkey see monkey do in the world of machinery. because we've always done it that wayisn't a very good reason to keep on doing it.
*Frenchy-Why the two frames? I'm hoping you'll say "because I felt like it," since I think thats the only reasonable answer.I have a large dormer that is 22/12. My advice is get a real good safety belt system before you get up there, its scary as shit.How has cutting your joints gone? My impression is that there is a reason frames are cut green, but I only know what I read in the papers. My guess is things are going to move and check one way or the other, so you might as well do it while the going is easier. Of course the fact that most people couldn't wait 12 years while their wood was drying might have something to do with it too.Good luck. And see if you can find a neighbor with a digital cam, I have to say I'm also starting to wonder if you aren't just a guy who lives in a NYC basement and smokes a little too much ganja...... :)
*i "can you explain why it's more accurite to move the table on a planer? So far everyone has said that."Frenchy, My guess would be a wee thing to do with a guy called Newton, and sitting under an apple tree, or so the legend has it. The option of a fixed table and two or four columns with a rising/falling cutter head and motor results in simple multiplications of necessary tolerances leading to ever less rigidity, and less ability to hold a thickness and accuracy. It's done, and pretty successfully too---- on smaller machines. Your proposed solution sounds like a nightmare of precision engineering. The flat face has to be forced up to a table and to maintain perfect contact there at all times; something of a contradiction to Mr. Newton's ideas, but quite likely technically doable. A machine engineered to work effectively as you describe I'd guess might start at about $12,000 for an 8" wide cut. Will you be first amateur woodworker in the queue to buy one? Frenchy, you're an off the wall character involved in selling stuff for a living with some interesting woodworking theories, and you almost always cause a smile, like this. :-) Slainte, RJ.
*Frenchy I went out this afternoon to pickup some reading material for my wife who was in labor. I came back with a house plan book using timber framing. I can uderstand your love for what you are doing. By the way we both dislike you because we have changed our minds and have decided to go the timber frame root.When are we going to see some pictures.Scott
*Hotsawdust, You got me, I felt like doing it. OK, I'm wierd. I just always liked the look of those timberframes in Europe where you can see the framework from the outside. While they wouldn't be very practical in our climate I've always wanted the timberwork exposed. Yet without a chance to look at my work from the inside I may as well live in a stick built house. Kinda lame but that's why the double timberframe.... I have learned that it's not smart to let things dry before you start your timber frame. Some timbers that were string straight have twisted almost 45% and are worthless. Next time I build myself a timber frame I'm gonna do it green and let the thing twist and warp in place! I'm glad I only waited three years. I've learned that the gaps that happen aren't really a sign of poor workmanship, but a result of uneven drying. Actual cutting of the mortise and tenion has gone reasonably easy, except it's a real bugger trying to test fit everything together first! But when that 20 foot long top plate slid into place, Thunk! I understood the need for trial fitting. (can you imagine trying to force a 6"x12" white oak beam to move just a little bit to line up dangling off a line 20 feet in the air?) some of my furniture quality joints have slipped a bit, but considering the size of them I suspect that a little carefull sanding should dress things back up. Regarding pictures; No I won't waste my money buying a camera but it turns out that my sister took some pictures last week just before the dormers went up on the first part of the frame work. Since next weekend I'll be covering the timbers with the SIPs it's real timely. I guess she didn't get any of the burl timbers which is a shame because they really look spectacular, I guess she was afraid the grain wouldn't show up very well withthe lens she had on. When she developes them she promised to have them put on a CD which I guess is what you need to do to post them.. She's promised me that when the outside Black walnut timberframe is done she'll take pictures of that too! So please be a little patient.
*Scott, How's the newest addiition? and let me be the first to offer my concradulations to you and your wife! Happy birthday young Frankland. I'm sorry to cause you anger :-) before you attempt a timberframe find a friendly sawmill. I take it you've read Benson's books then? Now that's some real eye candy! If you need any help I'll be glad to offer any insights I gained, plus I can point you to some referance material if you'd like! See previous post Re pictures..
*I have the jointer to the left of my table saw and use the top of the jointer fence as a support for long boards that are being crosscut on the table saw. I actually made an auxilarry fence for the jointer out of 3/8" Russian birch and the top edge is covered with slippery tape designed for woodworking fences I also positioned my drill press behind the band saw. I use the drill press table as an outfeed table from the band saw.My miter trim saw and radial arm saw have table surfaces placed on the same hieght so each surface helps support long stuff.I still ahven't got a good way to support lumber from the planer. Like you said, What a dumb design. A cutterhead that moves is the way to go.Don
*Concerning the different heights of your tools, might I suggest that you build bases for the shortest tool to bring up to the height of the tallest tool bed or to a newly established height.I've done this with my ts, jointer and bench and it allows me to use the bench as an infeed table for the ts and the jointer tables as supports for extra long crosscuts on the ts.Also as stated in previous postings there are planers with adjusting heads and stationary beds, very handy.I, also, would like to see pics of your house, looking forward to seeing them.Joe Roth"Electricity is really just organized lightning" GC
*Joe, I'm certain that most of us have more stuff than space. Thus we need to move things in and out. I agree if you have the space to do it without moving everything, that would be a simple answer. I haven't built/bought a work bench yet, I don't have enough room, my shop is only 33x55' (once the timberframe is done I'll gain another 6x22') As for pictures, we are at the whim of my sister. To my knowledge those are the only pictures of the first stage of the timberframe. When I first concieved this I was thinking that I would do the whole framework and then cover it. The city won't let me do that. So I will do it a piece at a time... Maybe not the way I wanted to but at least it will get done..
*donc, and everyone else who thinks a moving table for the thickness planer is a dumb idea, you guys aren't thinking like an engineer are you? a moving table is way more accurate on a large machine, which is where you find them, and while you could have a moving cutterhead on a big machine, the cost of making a tool like this accurate enough would be unaffordable to most. instead of complaining about what a poor design this is, get out into your shop, and design and build some infeed and outfeed tables that move with the bed. FWIW every summer i plane several thousand bf of ash and maple with a big industrial 24" planer. we have no infeed/outfeed tables, and it only takes two guys to plane and stack the lumber as it is planed with little to no snipe. last year we planed about 7000bf and it took us about 2 days.
*Frenchy:My shop is a 2 1/2 car garage, this includes storage,so in order to be most economical with space all machines are on wheels and most are built up to a height equal to each other. This allows me to store them against walls until needed and use them as supports when running longer lumber.I hope these ideas might be of some use.Joe Roth
*Joe, Yeh, that's a decent idea but why can't the mfg. settle on one height? Why should we have to adjust each machine? I mean if the jointer was the same height as the table saw you could use the jointer as an out/infeed table and visa versa. Now I can build infeed/outfeed tables in less than 10 minutes, but why should I have to?
*Ajepson, What if the cutter head and the table were built like a jointer? However instead of the table moving up and down the rollers that hold the board to one thickness move up and down. rollers/table on the top holding the board against the cutter heads
*I think Frenchy just described the planer on a certain European combination machine. Most of them get broken! It's my guess that the tablewide split for the cutterhead, bearings and drive so weaken the table that it cannot support the overhung weight of the lumber during infeed/outfeed. Also consider the overall length of planer tables vs jointer beds. Oh well, back to the shop!John
*Some things just don't work out.
*seems gravity would be working against you though with that idea. again, it's possible, but i can't see it being cost effective. sort of like using a laser beam to resaw rough lumber. since your having a problem with your infeed/outfeed tables i thought of an idea that might make things a little easier for you. attach the extensions to the planer table, and if they're too long to be rigid on their own, make a telescopic support leg (just like a regular roller stand) that can be clamped tight when your planing, but can be easily unclamped when the tables moves. once the table has been readjusted, lock the legs in place and your set. i hope this will help you out a bit, and from what i've been reading, it sounds like your doing the equivalent of building the titanic in a garage sized ship yard. good luck with the house and i'd love to see some pics
*Actually if I could do a better job of explaining you'd understand where gravity isn't an issue. Adjusting infeed tables and outfeed tables every pass is a royal pain in the rear. I do it by simply shoving shingles under the rollers that I use. it's not super accurite bit but it is quick. The formula is close enough that when I push the shingle in one inch I give the adjustment handle 3/4 of a turn. If I notice more snipe creeping in I give the shingle an extra 1/2 inch or so.. I wonder don't you ever run more than a few boards thru your planner? Am I the only one who does couple of hundred (or more) bd. ft. at a time? I can see if you only mill one or two boards where the poor design of equipment isn't an issue. I've got a set of rollers on an adjustable telescopic stand. They don't work worth squat. There is no accurite way to move it up and down and it's more than willing to come slamming all of the way down. Besides it's a flimsey piece of ship and once in a while I have to use it for something, but I hate flimsey stuff.
*John, Every portable planner made has a fixed base and moveable head. I've shoved over 10,000 bd.ft. thru my little Delta and it hasn't hiccuped. (OK so I've bought a few sets of blades, they cost the same as sharpening a set of {4} 20 inch ones so what does it matter?) So could you explain why a large cast iron version of this wouldn't work? The cutter head on my 800 pound 20 inch wide one is on top just like the little portable ones, they just move the base instead of the cutter head. If moving the cutter head is gonna be a problem (and so far it hasn't on my Delta) just put the cutter head and rollers on the bottom like a jointer.
*It wasn't my best post. Too hard to explain. Slainte, RJ
*Sgain, I'm interested, you seem to have a good grasp of tools and their capabilities. Plus a whole lot more experiance than I do, do you feel that most power equipment should be at differant heights? For example should the jointer be lower than the Table saw? why? I promise you that I'm not trying to ambush you, rather I need to understand why tools are built the way they are. Now granted untill I started to do a lot of woodwork I just accepted it. Table saws were this high, jointers were this high, and If I just used one tool at a time like the way they are used for typical handyman stuff that was fine. Once I got serious about it I realized the shortcomings of the way things were. I think that many of the projects that seem so daunting to people are that way because the short comings of equipment rather than that it's particularly difficult or expensive. For example, if you take rough sawn lumber from boards to a raised panel wall, you need to mill thousands of bd.ft., cut to size and then install. The install part is just a bunch of work, not particularly difficult. The mill part is where most are overwhelmed, yet there is nothing that should prove too difficult for a mildly skilled handyman with the proper equipment.
*Frenchy, I've been thinking about this thread today as I take rough-sawn lumber and turn it into raised paneling - the only thing I can think of is to examine these machines in historical context - these 'modern' home/light duty machines are a generation or two removed from the cast iron, line shaft driven monsters of the industrial revelution - these predicessor machines were stand alone stations, housed in vast factories, served by cheap, plentiful laborers - men served the machines - the post WW2 developement of these small scale 'affordable?' machines seems to have been a matter of taking the existing technology and downsizing - rather than standing back and visualizing (inventing?) new appropraite technology of smaller scale - which gibes with your basic complaint - I'd say that it's easier to make something smaller and cheaper than to make it more effecient - I'm sure there are exceptions to the above musings, but I'll wager that they are 'expensive' exceptions compared to the standards - Your main problem, Frenchy, is that very few people do what you are doing - there are few (no?) machines designed with your challenges in mind - if there were (are?), they'd be expensive - as for your observations on planer design, I don't know - I think there are obvious limits to how much motor/cutterhead that is reasonable to crank up and down, but I'm not sure why it would be unreasonable to squeeze the board down onto cutters mounted at a fixed height - adjusting the depth of cut is potentially a problem, - patent problems maybe? I'd guess the R&D is a big problem, coupled with questionable market - hey - it's hard to be eccentric - DOUD
*I think dave's made some good points. frenchy, your project isn't what tool companies had in mind when they designed your tools, which is an obvious cause of frustration for you. you have to have the right tools for the right job. if i were building your house, i think you would need a shop that consists of a 24" industrial planer (oliver or similar) at least a 16" jointer, at least a 30" bandsaw, at least a 14" ts and a 20" radial arm saw as far as basic machinery goes. all these machines would need a nice big home to live in as well. i would estimate the total cost of the machines at about $50 000 or more. this is not cheap, and there would be a lot more expenses when you add up the cost of everything else in a shop. if you had a setup like this, building your house wouldn't be a problem.
*Frenchie, I've been following this thread and I'd like to give my impressions. I find that the TS is about the right height for the kind of work I do with it. It's a good level to sight a line whether free ripping or cross cut. On the jointer, however, I often need to be somewhat over the work because I want to press down as the work goes across the cutterhead. I'm about 5' 3" and still shrinking. A higher table level would be hard for me to use.Now as for off bearing from the thickness planer. Yes, a pain in the " ". That roller stand thingy with the tripod legs and thumb screw to set an indefinate height. Skata. I've often looked at a hydraulic machinst table and I believe I'd get one if I had a lot of planing to do.The more I think about the idea of stationary base table with an adjustable cutter head on a planer, I am inclined to agree with those who believe the engineering would price it out of range. Having said that I realize that you have been using a Delta portable for that purpose. Are you putting your timbers through that thing. Hat's off to you. I'd like to see you do it. Having planned to build a timber frame when I retired, I had come to the conclusion that major investments in Maifel were a must. I certainly would want the hand planer for smoothing those beams. BTW I didn't do the timber frame bit because I came to the conclusion that if I couldn't finish it my wife would have to pay the earth to have it finished or have to abandon it. As I'm about 20 years older than you the probability of my failing were much higher. I enjoy your progress reports and I am looking forward to your continuing installments. I've a mind to buy you a digital camera so we can see the progress.BJ
*Frenchy, I'm not sure why the work surfaces of different machines are at different heights. But in thinking about it I realise that a table saw set as low as surface planer (US jointer) or a surface planer set as high as a table saw wouldn't be ideal for me. I feel that the functionality of one would have to be compromised for the convenience of the other. In using a saw you're looking more for a straight on push, and in a surface planer you are looking for both forward momentum, and downward pressure. A few years ago I used a Wadkin planer/thicknesser regularly. The tables were at about the same height as the neighbouring Wadkin bandsaw, and approximately at the same height as the nearby Wadkin dimension saw. Being a combination machine, I always found the tables of that planer/thicknesser a bit higher than I would have really liked, not for the small stuff, but for the big long heavy stuff. Nearby we had a Wadkin spindle moulder set on a couple of timber blocks, and the table on that was a couple of inches lower than the other machines I've mentioned. I wouldn't want a high table on a spindle moulder.The smaller bandsaws tend to have table set a bit higher than many other machines, but they are surely designed with more intricate cuts in mind so you need the work surface high. One or two very large bandsaws that I've used briefly had lower tables, but their primary function was dimensioning very large timbers.I tend to disagree with your assessment that woodworking projects are daunting to people because of the equipment. If I was asked to write a computer programme I think I would find the prospect daunting, the main reason being that I know almost nothing about the subject, and nothing about the eqipment, i.e., I'd be an untrained amateur bumbling about in a field mostly peopled by skilled and/or trained professionals. Now, furniture making on the other hand I don't have too much of a problem with because I spent years training and qualifying in that particular subject, and I've managed to get a bit of practical experience subsequently, which does come in handy in my working life. Your biggest problem with your need to "mill thousands of bd.ft." is almost certainly lack manpower and equipment. Production mills don't expect one person to run around doing the work of a team and materials handling systems, but from what I can make out, that's just what you are trying to do. I find it rather interesting that you say, i "The mill part is where most are overwhelmed, yet there is nothing that should prove too difficult for a mildly skilled handyman with the proper equipment." That was just a slip of the tongue,--------wasn't it? ;-) Slainte, RJ
*David, Well put, You hit the nail on the head when you said it's easier to make something smaller and cheaper than to make things better. As for my wierd planner ideas, too bad I'm busy with something else...
*a jepson, It's not any more of a problem doing what I'm doing than anything else, you just get on with it. The equipment that I have works, it's just that it could be designed better. Not just for the large volume of wood I'm going thru but every time someone needs to shove more than one board thru a planner or guide the back end of that eight footer thru a bandsaw by himself. By the way the total of all of the brand new equipment I got is less than $20,000.00 that includes the hand tools as well.
*Bee Jay, Mafell is way too expensive and limited (how many 240 volt extension cords do you know about?) My Mikita (at less than 1/4 of the price) will give a nice cut on a six inch timber. The Mikita 6 3/4 inch power planer also meets the needs of most of my timbers except those timbers wider than 6 inches. I actually did a nice job on the 18 inch wide timbers by making three passes and using a belt sander to smooth out the differances. I started out putting the timbers thru my portable Delta but found out that as the blades got dull I had to push harder and harder. That ment it was tougher and tougher to keep the the little portable in place. Actually it would have been nice if it had worked. I bought two sections of used ten foot rollers and mounted the little Delta on a turn table. I push them thru on one pass and then turn the planner around and push thru on the other way all without having to lift the timbers. (a serious consideration when you figure what a 20 foot long 6"x12" white oak timber weighs) I bought a 20 inch cast iron beastie and found out that it was faster to use the Mikita power plane than to move the timbers around (evan with the aid of a forklift) I too was afraid of leaving my wife with a unfinished house should something happen. I bought an inexpensive insurance policy that would cover the cost of having the house finished by pros should I die. At my age it costs about $45.00 a month. My sister will get the pictures developed and has promised to take more as work progresses, you won't have to risk a digital camera with me... I'll post them as soon as I get them.
*Sgian, When you're building furniture do you ever need to use the band saw to work on a long piece of wood (8-10-12 feet)? How do you hold up both ends? I'm thinking of something like a bed or large entertainment center. While I don't have your experiance or short cuts knowledge I'd use a outfeed table of some sort. That's where the differant heights of equipment hurts. I don't put myself as anything more than am overly ambitous handyman, yet I realized that it was within my capability to achieve this. The results that I have so far show me that it's well within my capabilities.
*Frenchy, Mostly I use the table saw for ripping long and thick timbers, and anything up to 16/4 is not very unusual: I can cut up to 130 mm (~5") deep with it, but I've seldom needed to, and the machine has a longish homemade offcut table that prevents 12' stuff tipping off balance after the cut. If I use the bandsaw for this kind of operation as I do from time to time, we have a couple of materials handling carts with top surfaces that closely match the bandsaw table height; coincidental, or not? ;-) You generally only need additional support on the outfeed side when using a bandsaw for ripping, and failing the carts mentioned above I'll just grab my shop-mate, as he does me in the same circumstances. Slainte, RJ.
*Sgian, That's what I do too, I grab a few pieces of one by six. and my nail gun and bang bang bang I make an outfeed table. I generally can make both an outfeed table and infeed table in less than 10 minutes and maybe I shouldn't begrudge those ten minutes. But I do. I've got several pieces of wood that wouldn't meet my standards so I don't mind putting a few more nail holes in them. Because everything is so jammed in my shop I wind up straddleing the table saw and evan sometimes the jointer. which is what got me thinking in the first place. I know that a super abundance of space is not what anyone seems to have, hence the thoughts about the heights of tools. I'm too independant to ask anyone else to help (besides the cost of getting she who must be obeyed to help is beyond belief, the two daughters take after the mother)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled