Replies

1. 
   Rob_Millard | Dec 28, 2001 06:19pm | #1

   *
   In my opinion, edge gluing, does not require any form of reinforcement. You can test this quite easily by gluing a sample together, and then breaking it apart. The failure will, with few exceptions, occur not at the joint, but in the wood itself. This is because glue is typically stronger than the wood itself. Any of the PVA glues will do a fine job.

1. 
   Danford_C._Jennings | Dec 28, 2001 06:23pm | #2

   *Nathan,A PVA glue such as TiteBond II would work just fine, the only problem that might occur would be creep. Other wise use hide or an urea resin glue.As to the need for splines or tongue and groove edge joinery much depends on the size and thickness, "doors and side panels" is not enough information. If you are talking passage or entry doors, I would go with T & G and mortise/tenon for the rails into the stiles. For side panels on a bookcase, for example, I would go with T & G or splines depending on thickness. If we are talking kitchen cabinet doors then neither would be required. If the side panels are for the ends of kitchen cabinets I would go with T & G on the lowers and simple edge joints on the uppers. I've never used ply wood for splines. Generally, I will use the same wood type for them. Dano

1. 
   nathan_wegemer | Dec 28, 2001 06:32pm | #3

   *on my way out, late this a.m., thanks for the advice. I'll share more tonight, if you care to comment further, Dano. Thanks againNathan

1. 
   Danford_C._Jennings | Dec 28, 2001 06:35pm | #4

   *Nathan,By all means, please do.Dano

1. 
   nathan_wegemer | Dec 29, 2001 09:14am | #5

   *this is a pair of upper bookcases, open shelves, over a lower cabinets with three flush face drawers on mechanical sliders. The bookcase/cabinets flank a tv center with a pair of drawers below, and shelves above. The shelves over the side lower cabinets will have one fixed shelf about 2/3 up from the lower cabinet top, and two adjustable shelves. These side panels will be 24" wide at the bottom, and 16" wide above. The stock for the side panel pieces is one 1x12, one 1x10, one 1x6. I believe my carpenter is going to glue up the side panels in one piece, 84" tall. The 1x6 forms the 24" lower section, and the 12 and 10 make the upper section. The side lower cabinet tops sit in a dado at the side panels, I believe, and are glued up from one 5/4 x12, one 5/4x10, and one 5/4x6. The doors to the tv cabinet are now, unfortunately, straightend and planed 1x which is 5/8 thick. The doors are 16" wide adn 32" tall, from two 1x10 each. I just realized that our first plan of face frames on these doors to cover side panels and upper shelf are not in keeping with the side cabinet drawer fronts which are flush to panel edges. Could a frame be applied to the backside? The hardware for these doors is to be of the type that allow the door to open, and then slide back into the cabinet. The upper vcr shelf behind the doors will hang from the fixed open shelf above, to allow a gap for the doors to recess. TV rests on another 5/4 shelf. Two lower center drawer fronts are not one piece like the side drawers, but are glued up from one 1x6 and one 1x8.Hope you were able to track this verbage, coming from a rough framer. My cabinet guy seems to have knowledge of technique, but not too much practical application. What did I miss... all material is d clear select ponderosa, everything 1x except what is mentioned, drawers are 5/8 baltic birch, back is 3/4 pine ply.Dano, have you any knowledge of the ammonia/tannic acid aging process, and how it might apply to pine? I'll test a piece if it isn't going to be a waste of time.Let me know if I missed something, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.Nathan

2. 
   Danford_C._Jennings | Dec 30, 2001 08:58pm | #6

   *Nathan,Your verbage is pretty clear to me. The only things I'm not clear on would be the stock dimensions; are these nominal or actual? The other thing that kinda stopped me in my tracks is, "My cabinet guy..." I am very reluctant to interfere with the guy who is on site, if you catch my drift. If he is the one with the questions that is one thing, if you are questioning his work; that is something entirely different. Please don't take offense, I am willing to help. A tad more clarification would help.I am only familiar with the ammonia/tanic acid technique based upon what I have read. Never used it. I either suntan, stain, or use cut orange shellac depending on wood type to "age".Dano

3. 
   nathan_wegemer | Dec 31, 2001 06:34am | #7

   *DanoAll the stock is 1x nominal, except for the tv cabinet doors which were flattened annd planed to 5/8. All the shelves and side panels were left nominal, because they were pretty true. After glue-up, we'll run them through a big sanding planer to bring the edges true. We weren't aware of this technique at the outset of the milling, or we would have left them alone. As they are, I'm hoping they don't twist, and we can get them even at the glue edge.When the "cabinet maker" shows he can make cabinets, I'll leave him lots of room. No doubt, he probably knows more than me. But we're awfully early in his career to let him call the third and longs audibly.

4. 
   Danford_C._Jennings | Dec 31, 2001 10:22pm | #8

   *Nathan,I think I caught your drift. Personally, I would mill the stock into widths no wider than three inches, edge gluing by alternating the growth rings. For the cabinet doors I would feel comfortable in edge gluing using clamps and cauls. For the longer side panels I would go with T & G edge joints, still using stock no wider than 3", alternating the growth rings and using clamps and cauls for glue up.It would be recommended that the cut list be done so that change of grain be eliminated or reduced.As a qualifier, if the Pondarosa stock is quarter sawn or flat sawn stock where the rings are nearly vertical to the faces milling to thinner widths i may not be necessary. When working with most pines and firs, I tend to be very conservative when it comes to wood movement issues, particularly in cupping.Finishing both sides, even where one side won't show is also recommended.Dano

5. 
   nathan_wegemer | Jan 01, 2002 11:06am | #9

   *i edge gluing by alternating the growth rings.bark up, bark down...?i flat sawn stock where the rings are nearly vertical to the faceshow is this possible? I thought flat sawn stock described growth rings running parrallel with a board face. This is what we had availablewe glued up some shelves and the entertainment center side panels today. Cupping is apparent. We didn't alternate growth rings. As it is now, the worst cup we have is about 1/32 across a 1x12. I'm considering after reading your advice, of ripping the glue ups, and re-glueing. What a pile of work, no? With a jointed edge, can I rip the boards with a chisel tooth, flip every other board, and re-glue? What about the process we went through to color and grain match the boards? We selected for non-alternating grain, and then matched color first, and grain second. What your describing would entail a great deal of work matching pieces for color, not to mention grain...quick, call me a whambulance!Happy New Year.Nathan

6. 
   Rob_Millard | Jan 01, 2002 08:17pm | #10

   *I would at all costs avoid falling into the trap of using very narrow stock. Doing this always results in a very poor appearance. Alternating growth rings, while often touted as a way to control cupping is also, in my opinion a waste of time, but if done must be balanced against the final appearance. The pine you are using, if properly dried, is quite stable. Finishing both sides is definitely a good idea, and will do more to stabilize the wood, than worrying about the growth rings and using narrow boards. I don’t discount the idea of narrow boards being more stable. In fact I have on many occasions made substrates for my veneer work, using very narrow stock, and orienting the growth rings, to form a panel that is for all purposes made from quarter sawn wood. These are so stable, that I can veneer one side only and have no cupping, something you certainly can’t do with solid wood, and be sure of the outcome.

7. 
   Danford_C._Jennings | Jan 01, 2002 08:41pm | #11

   *Nathan,And Happy New Year to you as well.Since a log is round, even a flat sawn one will yield some boards that appear to have been quarter sawn. This is a "trick" I learned many years ago in selecting stock. Go down to your local lumber yard and check the end grain of a bunk of 2x to verify.Yes you can rip along the glue line but, you should re joint the edge.I mentioned the grain matching only because some are concerned about grain appearance. I don't consider 3" as overly narrow, and in this case since Pondarosa Pine is being used, I still stand by my recommendations. If you are content that the 1/32nd cup can be removed and it will not cup any more, then do what you feel comfortable with.As to alternating growth rings, there are two schools of thought on that subject. I am of the "old school" where this is the accepted practice and as I've never had problems with that method I do feel comfortable in recommending it.The bottom line is that it looks right to you and that you are happy with the results.Dano

8. 
   Sgian_Dubh | Jan 01, 2002 10:32pm | #12

   *Dano, I guess I'm of the 'old school' too when it comes to edge joinery, but my approach would seem to be rather different, which indicates that my 'old school' wasn't the same one as as yours. ;-) I don't think you're wrong, it's just different. Selecting growth ring orientation and grain direction in plain sawn material (a cut aka as through & through, or slash) for solid timber panels always raises debate amongst woodworkers. I was trained to take a flexible approach to the job, and pick a method appropriate to the particular task in hand which takes into account the end use of the glueup. As a consequence I've never felt comfortable with arbitrary fixed rules that dictate how this job should be done every time; and I tend to think there are always exceptions to every rule anyway. I think I've employed most of the commonly espoused conventions, viz,*Alternate the growth rings using narrow planks- for a rippled effect, *Growth rings all orientated the same way using random width planks- for a cupped appearance,*Either of the above using planks all machined to the same width, either narrow, or wide*A mixture of the three above,*Selecting for looks without regard for growth ring orientation.Regarding the above 'rules', you have to ask questions of yourself before you decide on an approach. For instance, take the first two listed- alternating the growth ring orientation, or assembling with the growth rings all facing the same side of the plank. In a table top for instance, which is preferable? A series of ripples to hold down flat to the rails, or a top that cups just one way? If there are no rails to tie the top down to, such as a Georgian style single pedestal tilt top with bearers underneath, would you even use plain sawn timber? Perhaps here you'd be better off altogether with quarter sawn stuff, but quarter sawn timber is often- but not always, plain and uninteresting to look at, so now should you add an interesting veneer to the mix? Questions, questions, and in the end I tend to find that I use particular techniques for a particular job.I've also used just about every technique there is for panel edge joints. I like the basic unreinforced 'sprung' joints which I usually prepare on the surface planer- US jointer, some final skimming with a hand plane and assembled with hot hide glue. But there are many occassions where I choose to add additional joinery, which could be such things as dowels, tongue and groove, biscuits, machined joints, and I'll use a different glue, such as epoxy, urea formaldehide, polyurethane, etc.. Slainte, RJ.

9. 
   Danford_C._Jennings | Jan 01, 2002 11:47pm | #13

   *Sgian,I'm most certain our schools were different.b ;)I certainly agree that there always exceptions to every "rule" and I take exceptions to them too. In this particular case I had noticed that Nathan had not received an answer to his original question for the better part of the day. Apparently Rob and I decided to reply at the same time. I originally felt there was not enough information, that's why I asked for more. After it was provided I did sense an "urgency" on Nathan's part.Any who, I intentionally went the "conservative" route. Not being there to actually see the piece, does make it difficult at times to offer the "correct" answer. Perhaps I was lazy in not offering more complete responses.As a "rule" because of the amount of hand work I do, grain orientation is of prime concern to me in glued up pieces in that I use smoothing planes and what not in preparation to my finish operations. Nothing more frustrating when I have "guessed" wrong.b ;)I'm also glad that you dropped in, as usual, you have provided excellent food for thought.DanoOh, and Happy New Year to you and yours.

10. 
    nathan_wegemer | Jan 03, 2002 09:18am | #14

    *Thanks so much, everyone for the opinions, insight, and doors to future learning. Of course, this isn't as simple as one would think. No worries, experience is the best teacher.I opted to increase the dimension of the panel stock to 5/4. I'm not confindent that two large pieces, measuring now 3/4 wouldn't move, even considerably, after planing 3/32, or 1/4. I'm assuming that stock that is now 1 3/8, brought down to 1 1/8 on the sanding planer, will react less. Besides, the pieces of thick stuff were prettier...I'm going to go for appearance on the end panels, and keep the rings the same. If they move, and any reveals happen to change, I'm hoping to split the difference.Thanks for teaching me what it is I need to learn. Nathan