I would appreciate any comments or suggestions whatsoever on a new device we are developing that would allow one to easily, quickly and very accurately face joint boards on the planer. It will be in kit form or completely assembled with a unique way of chucking board regardless of bow, crook, cup or twist. I wish I had this over the years particulary on heavy boards or thin boards as this will do it more accurately than a joiner.
We are debating on the optimal length and width capacity and think 10- 12 ft would suffice most x 16″ wide.
stormin
Replies
I'm looking forward to it. Assume most people have planers that are 12" or less.
Just what operation are you doing when you "face joint" a 16 inch wide board on a planer? If you are talking about flattening the first face of a board you will presumably be limited by the width of the planer.
There have been numerous sleds offered for doing this over the years, you should probably run a patent and magazine search before you go too far with your idea, just to be sure you don't get into trouble with patent or copyright laws. A 10 or 12 foot long sled would be very awkward to use and would need a very long shop to handle the infeed and outfeed clearances. Storage for a long sled would also be a hassle. For most furniture work a 4 or 6 foot long sled would suffice.
John W.
Edited 12/7/2004 11:32 am ET by JohnW
Thanks I have never seen one advertised or a trade show. We would offer 8' model and commercial model 12' Yes: width is determined by planer width(of course).
I have been doing some searches lately but not for this unit but for our other units
PneumaClamp and VeneerKutter
stormin
I don't know of any commercial versions of a planer sled being sold, but there have been numerous versions of shop made sleds published in woodworking magazines over the past few years. I believe that selling a design that appeared in a magazine can get you into problems, even if you independently came up with the idea.
Also even if a sled design isn't being manufactured at the moment, it doesn't mean that someone hasn't already patented the same concept that you are planning to use.
Good luck, I look forward to hearing more about your design.
John W.
Don' t worry be happy
We are product developers and patent holders and consult on many tool and machine related issues to the Big Boys in the woodworking world and television.
I know I had not seen anything commercially.
We have own woodworking and tool and die operation.
As soon as I see the words woodworking and television in the same sentence all I can think of is "gimmic". I'll be waiting to see it but there's no way it can be as efficient or better than a jointer. I've done sleds and such in a pinch in other folks shops but if you know how to properly use a jointer there's nothing faster or more accurate. Bring this gizmo on...we'll see!
As far as industrially oriented you wouldn't see such a device as you have invented. Jointers would be the machine of choice and as far as production the power facer is what's used. Basically a jointer with a power feed that consists of hundreds of spring loaded fingers to d come as close to duplicating the hand feeding of a board.
So what have you developed that was a success that you can point to. I'd be interested in seeing your other succesful patents. I'm involved in metal working, wood working and other endeavors so I'd be interested in anything you patented.
Kinda skeptical. Did you take your Prozac this week as there seems to be some animosity mixed with the skepticism ?
I am not sure your reply warrants an answer (not soley based on above) but you seem to know all the answers.
I would challenge you any day as to my knowledge of woodworking and /or metal working.
YOu are incorrect as to the jointer necessarily being the best choice for face jointing boards. There are many instances were it is not provided the right alternative is at hand.
Ever hear of the most precision planer in the world from Japan that is a travelling head planer/joiner ? I doubt it as there is only one in the UNited States. Guess who knows where it is.I mention it as it relates to the geometry of the device I am working on.
I wish you best - though no need for any more replies with your tone(s)
Sure I'm skeptical but I'm open minded. Can't say I am familiar with the Japanese machine you are talking about...wouldn't be Marunaka, would it? They are makers of a single fixed blade planer. Kind of a powerfeed handplane. During the 70's some of the Japanese companies tried to market the concept here but it didn't catch on at the small shop homeowner level but some companies are using the more expensive units by Marunaka for making veneers.There's lots of tools that aren't available here. Makita and Hitachi make a housing machine for the timber framing industry but it isn't available here anymore. Delta used to make a rotary head jointer. Doesn't mean it didn't work well. It was exceptionally good with small and curly stock. There's a company that makes a thickness planer using a series of similar heads mounted gang fashion but most folks don't know about it. During the 30's there was a planer like machine that had a single fixed blade. Basically it was a power feed scraper. You aren't Ron Popeil, are you?I still say using the words woodworking and television in the same sentence conjures up images of those info-mercials and gadgets like the vegomatic or even the shopsmith with their late night hour long info-mercial.So what things have you sucessfully patented and have in the average workplace??? That's an easy question to answer!You read too much in between the lines about tone. Just patent this device and get it on the market so folks can see it. You got everyone curious.You said...
"YOu are incorrect as to the jointer necessarily being the best choice for face jointing boards. There are many instances were it is not provided the right alternative is at hand."So tell us more about better ways to face joint boards! Don't leave us hanging without sharing some of your knowledge!
Not Muranaka. There are many machines in Japan and Europe that are not seen here or even at Euro trade shows. Cannot reveal more at this time about the planer unit.
It won't go into production unless it meets stringent specs. As we regularly work to .0001 in metal work and .003 in woodwork I am not worried about parameters although face jointing does not have to meet those specs(except possibly across the width(most people cannot set their blades that accurately). Our new VeneerKutter veneer saw/jointer does have .005 tolerance over 96" and PneumaClamp edgebands and edgeglues with .002 tolerance on glue thickness along width and length.
Next year
You still did not answer Rick3ddd's questions.
So what things have you sucessfully patented and have in the average workplace??? That's an easy question to answer! You claim to have a proven track record. I'd love to see the products you have developed.
And what is the make of that Japanese planer you spoke of?
I believe that selling a design that appeared in a magazine can get you into problems, even if you independently came up with the idea.
I don't see how it would. 'nothing illegal with copying someone else's idea for a gadget. 'done all the time. The only exception is if the idea is patented.
Many small-time inventors don't seem to understand this. They think that they own the some rights to the idea by virtual of being the inventor. Wrong. You own zilch, nothing, nada, unless and until a patent on it gets issued. Then you get exclusive rights to it for 20 years, in exchange for disclosing to the public how to build it. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you disclose it to someone else, and they turn around and start making and selling them, and give you nothing in return.
Copyrights are sometimes applied to architectural drawings but that doesn't apply here. And even copyrights are pretty limited: e.g., while you can't make copies of the magazine article and sell them, you can build the gadget from the article, hand it to another person who examines it and writes an article on how to build it that you can then sell (so-called "clean room" technique).
There was an article on a sled of this type in FWW awhile back. 'looks like it could be useful for doing the first surfacing on boards that are wider than your jointer, but not your planer. Everyone has a 12" planer, but very few have jointers that wide.
I concur with JOHNW. Suggest a maximum 8' sled with a 12" width.
Also, consider the "quality" issue carefully. A board that is "almost" flat won't help much. The jig you propose must equal the output from a quality jointer.
Thanks
Don't worry about quality or accuracy but how about price point at retail ?
My parameters besides above are ease of use and chucking procedure.
We will have prototypes by next week.
It is hard to comment on a device unseen nor accurately described.
Thanks:
Cannot describe any further due to proprietary reasons. Just assume dead accurate(more accurate than joiner facing), easy chucking, lightweight
Price point at retail??
Demand?
If i'm going to buy this instead of a jointer, how do I joint the edge of the board? How do I surface the face of a bowed 12" board on my 12 1/2" jointer?
What other devices do I need to buy to match the jointer functionality?
Is this just another gizmo to drop a few hundred bucks on to be disappointed to sit around and get in the way later on?
If I really need to do this on my planer, I can whip out an 8 foot jig for about $20 in materials and 30 minutes of time. Will yours be competitive?
No gizmo. Won't be on the market unless it works in foolproof manner.
If you don't want a joiner (though it is handy for a number of variations on the joining process including edge joining. You can edge join very accurately in the following manner. Face joint(with our device) 1st and plane to thickness.
Use Griset Industries ProFt'r($99.00) as reference edge against fence(if stock is 96" or less/other methods available for longer stock/contact me) and rip opposite edge .Also you can rip with http://www.eurekazone.com and portable saw for reference edge. Using a robust router table setup with split fence system or shim system)with extra long(preferably extruded alum) lead in fence route/joint edge with sharp spiral or straight face 1/2" shank router bit. Using feather board or springloaded roller hold in against outfeed fence. Never take more than 1/16" max depending on bit geometry and router hp.
Price point?
If it works as you say, i s'pose 199$ retail.
But you have to understand I'm naturally skeptical. It be interesting to see it, but I use a 12" Oliver jointer and have no need to replace it. But I'm sure some would buy it.
Your business venture needs to do some serious market research aforehand.
A part of our market research is online with forums amongst other venues and methods.
Might be in the price range but may be upwards 299.00.? Final configuration and volumes produced will dictate much of that decision.
Remember general rule of thumb for OEM products to retail through normal distribution channels can be 4x manufactured cost. Of course that depends if direct to public and how much distribution in between. We'll see.
Keep in mind lifetime of no maintainence use, time and hassle it diminishes and it is portability for high end jobsite use.
"may be upwards of $299" "works better than a jointer"
you've just lost my interest.
but good luck.
Sounds Good! How about 20" or 24" wide? I mill and dry a lot of walnut in those widths.
There's my man!! Particularly for those big planks as I work with them too. Other than Japanese $100,000+ planer with travelling head it gets pretty heavy trying to push them though any jointer.
I am working on this aggressively-it is not easy to meet all my stringent parameters including relatively easy chucking time to load plank.
Short of milling plank on someones cnc unit I can tell you how to make your own very effective plank milling machine with travelling head.
DaleK -Follow up to previous post. Where are you as I am in the market for in the boule dry wide lumber in walnut , sapele, mahogany etc.?
I am in Paradise. A small town in northern California near Chico.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled