Replies

1. 
   Bogart | Dec 28, 2008 10:40pm | #1

   Thanks for taking the time do do this. It is a great article and worth the effort. Bogart

   Happy 2009

2. 
   Samson | Dec 29, 2008 12:17am | #2

   Thanks you very much, Derek. 

   I'm honored that you've given my posts a place on your wonderful site. 

   Happy New Year!

1. 
   dkellernc | Jan 13, 2009 11:20pm | #6

   Samson - A comment about making raised, fielded panels by hand.  If you've the opportunity, pick up a panel raiser at an MWTCA meet.  These look a bit like big crown molders (woodies, of course), but have a skew blade and a nicker.  These planes will allow you to make a raised panel in a big hurry (or with fewer strokes, tools, and set-ups, if you're not in too much of hurry).  An alternative is a Badger plane, but for these to work effectively to make the raised panel, you have to cut grooves for the field edge across the panel's face.  A panel raiser dispenses with that step, and does everything at once.

   Some panel raisers actually make a panel with a beveled edge and a tongue on all four sides, so in some ways the final result resembles a modern, router-bit panel.  I usually find it unnecessary to cut a tongue to fit the grooves in the stiles/rails - on most lod furniture I've examined, the sloped edge of the field is simply fit into the surrounding grooves.

1. 
   Samson | Jan 14, 2009 02:07am | #7

   You mean like this?

   View Image

   Yeah, I have one.  Maybe I'm not using is right, but I can't get it to make different size bevels.  ;-) 

   I'm not a fan of no tongue - i.e. just having the slope go into the groove.  Too much risk of rattles and and stresses for my taste.   

1. 
   dkellernc | Jan 14, 2009 06:17pm | #10

   Yes, but of course what you have is a fixed panel raiser.  Most of them that I've seen (and have) have adjustable fences on the bottom, so one can usually adjust the bevel width from about 1/2" minimum to about 3" maximum.  Some of these do have the tongue-cutting provision like the panel raiser that you have, though they're not as common.

   Just my opinion, but I think the risk of rattle is higher with a tongue.  The reason is that the tongue cannot extend to the bottom of the groove on both sides, else humidity changes would split the panel or the door frame.  When the tongue shrinks from dryness, it will allow the panel to vibrate fore/aft in the groove and rattle with each closing and/or opening.

   I'll admit that the bevel in the groove would seem to run counter to the "space for movement" idea, but so far I haven't had any panels split or the frames come apart.  I think the reason might be that the part of the panel contacting the groove is quite small, and is weak enough to give when the panel expands.

   One nice thing about the bevel-in-the-groove method, though, is the top and bottom of the panel are wedged by the bevel bearing against the front of the bevel and the back of the panel in the rail's grooves.  Since the length of the panel doesn't change, there's no possibility of rattle, and since it's a wedge arrangement, it's not necessary to carefully fit the width of the tongue on the panel to the width of the groove.

   All of this suggests that the hybrid might be the best of all possible worlds - a bevel without a tongue on the top and bottom of the panel, and a tongue on the sides to allow for a loose fit and expansion/contraction.

1. 
   Samson | Jan 14, 2009 06:56pm | #11

   Intersting thoughts, observations, and all around good information.  Thanks.

   THe other thing that caused me to shy away from bevels alone are that it would seem to require the woodworker to hit a perfect single point is sizing - that point where the bevel meets the groove.  That point must be perfect all the way around the door.  I tend to try to come up with designs that leave me some wiggle room.  Maybe if I was a better wood worker ...

2. 
   dkellernc | Jan 14, 2009 08:24pm | #13

   "THe other thing that caused me to shy away from bevels alone are that it would seem to require the woodworker to hit a perfect single point is sizing - that point where the bevel meets the groove."

   Actually, this is pretty easy.  You don't have to perfectly hit the bevels on the sides, just the ends.  Since the length of the board will not change dimension, so long as it's wedged into the grooves in the rails, all that matters on the sides is that the bevel's at a shallow enough angle and the groove's wide enough to get 1/4" or so "hidden" behind the front wood of the groove.

   Also, I, like you, use hand tools because it allows "sneaking up" to a good fit between mortise and tenons, dovetails, bridle joints, etc...  In the case of panels, I cut the panel to be about 1/2" over the dimensions of the inside of the rails and stiles all around, so that 1/4" will be captured in the grooves.  Then I just plane with the panel raiser until at least 1/4" will fit into the groove in the stiles, and as close as I can get to 1/4" in the grooves in the rails.

   When you assemble the door, most common cabinet woods have a little bit of give, so I've found that it's not necessary to get things precisely, exactly on target.  If I were doing this out of a hard, dense tropical wood like rosewood or ebony, I think I'd be a lot more concerned.

2. 
   Samson | Jan 14, 2009 02:27am | #8

   Other problems I've had with the panel raiser - in hardwoods it can be problematic across grain.  And as I lack a pair, it's also a problem on one side of the long grain (you're going against it).  Especially a problem for anything with curl. 

   Love it for pine and poplar though.

1. 
   derekcohen | Jan 14, 2009 04:44am | #9

   Ooooh Sean, that panel raiser is beautifulll! A Robins? I would loooovvvve one!

   My short cut (or quicker method) is to cut a rabbet on the rear of the panel ..

   View Image

   Then, having marked out carefully, cut the field and the front slope to the edge ...

   View Image

   .. checking the final dimensions with a scrap of the groove ...

   View Image

   Result ....

   View Image

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

   Edited 1/13/2009 8:44 pm ET by derekcohen

1. 
   Samson | Jan 14, 2009 07:17pm | #12

   I'll have to give it a try.  Thanks, D.

3. 
   gofigure57 | Dec 29, 2008 04:12am | #3

        Derek,  Fine example of Knots at  it's best.  Thanks for the link. 

                                                        Tom.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

        De

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

4. 
   stpatrick | Dec 29, 2008 05:15am | #4

   Sean, GREAT article and VERY MUCH appreciated. Thank you most sincerly. Patrick

    

   Derek, very considerate of you and also very much appreciated. Patrick

5. 
   pharmachippie | Jan 12, 2009 09:54am | #5

   Well done,Derek.

   I can add nothing to what the others have already said. They are spot on.

   Robin