• Hi all and welcome to TheWoodHaven2 brought into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming! We all have Alasdair to thank for the vast bulk of the heavy lifting to get us here, no more so than me because he's taken away a huge burden of responsibility from my shoulders and brought us to this new shiny home, with all your previous content (hopefully) still intact! Please peruse and feed back. There is still plenty to do, like changing the colour scheme, adding the banner graphic, tweaking the odd setting here and there so I have added a new thread in the 'Technical Issues, Bugs and Feature Requests' forum for you to add any issues you find, any missing settings or just anything you'd like to see added/removed from the feature set that Xenforo offers. We will get to everything over the coming weeks so please be patient, but add anything at all to the thread I mention above and we promise to get to them over the next few days/weeks/months. In the meantime, please enjoy!

The technical bit

sunnybob

sunnybob

Old Oak
Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
3
Location
Cyprus
The dining table rebuild has reached the stage where I have zero knowledge so would be grateful for advice.
I will be making up an area of 1000mm x 730mm with planking, fitted into a rebate in the large timbers on each side.
I think 20 mm thick into a 10 mm rebate?
Width per timber can be whatever is suggested is best.
Which orientation is best? lengthwise or across?
How much movement will I get in either direction?
and how do I allow for that in the assembly?

Thank you muchly.
 
So your building a frame of say 4*1’s on edge and aim to rebate that and set the top into it?

If so then I’d suggest that’s a very bad idea. The planks will/can move over their width a great deal over the seasons. That will either leave you with gaps around the edges or worse the top pushing the sides out and breaking the structure.

There’s a reason table tops are normally sat on top of the frame and not set into it.

Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.
 
He's replicating his original table Mark. But replacing MDF with planks.

Bob. You are heading for disaster here. Why not just make an entirely new top rather than try to re-use those sides and ends? Keep it simple and just edge join the planks with a rubbed joint. Quarter sawn ideally if you want to avoid cupping.

Do you have wide enough clamps?
 
Given you are going to experience movement, you might be better going for a "breadboard ends" top. https://www.woodmagazine.com/woodworkin ... breadboard
It is easier than it looks and you have a router so you can do it. The benefit is it allows movement whilst endeavouring to keep the top flat.
Trying to keep boards flat that are just sat in a rebate, whilst allowing for movement is difficult and will need a gap. It is difficult at the best of times and in your climate, a challenge.
Also can you get quarter sawn oak or at least can you select the quarter sawn from the material being offered. For instance if the stock is through and through 3 of 4 boards from the middle will be quarter sawn
 
Tole you I was iggerant, dint I? :lol:

There is usually quite a lot of oak planks available, of all sizes lengths and thicknesses, but till now have never paid attention to end grain.
I wont be able to sort the yards stock till monday.
I dont have any set ideas, I was just going to reuse the edge boards because theyre there.
Please remember that I dont even know any of the technical terms already used here :? "rubbed joint"? , I need words of one syllable please :eusa-violin: .

Adrian, am I understanding correctly you recommend just a row of short planks (for want of a better word) with no frame, glued side to side? If so, what width and depth?
No, I dont have a single clamp wider than 600 mm :oops:
I do have 2 frame straps, but even those wouldnt reach all the way round the whole table.
I can work smart and glue sections together, but the final one will be a challenge, thats for sure.
 
sunnybob":1zo07q29 said:
No, I dont have a single clamp wider than 600 mm :oops:
I do have 2 frame straps, but even those wouldnt reach all the way round the whole table.
I can work smart and glue sections together, but the final one will be a challenge, thats for sure.
Click to expand...

This is just an off-the-cuff thought, so ignore if it's a daft idea...

If you can glue sections together and end up with two bits that need sticking together but are bigger than your clamps, you could fix them together using a couple of bits of wood screwed/nailed down to a base board (I think: I've never tried this...).

Put your two boards next to one another on a big flat surface and fix a straight wooden plank to the flat surface, flush with the boards & one on each side. Then remove the boards and add a thin spacer next to one of the fixed planks (narrowing the gap between the two fixed planks by a small amount). Glue the edges of your boards and push them into the gap (start with them lifted up in an upside-down V shape with the outside edges against the fixed planks and push down in the middle). The amount of force applied on the glue joint will depend on how thick the spacer you chose was (I'd probably start with a metre long steel rule). Test it before putting the glue on!

Does that make sense?
 
You're nearly there, Al - the traditional approach is to use wedges instead of straight spacers, which gives a little more control over the whole process. If precision isn't that important and the workpiece isn't too large, you can just tap in one wedge each side, otherwise multiple sets of opposing wedges at various points along the length.
 
To get this into my aging brain I have to do this in steps
(also not helped today by a very sore mouth and headache after a molar extraction yesterday so please be patient).
I need to establish the preferred orientation.
The table finish size will be 1200 mm x 900 mm.
Should the boards run shortways or lengthways?
 
I don't see why breadboard ends are necessary for a simple table. They just make work and add gaps.

I would take quarter sawn dead straight and flat planks with finished thickness of around 30mm and glue them tight against each other having first made sure that edge to edge they are a perfect fit. You can glue up in sections if you want (I had to do this with the first kitchen work surface I made).

Depending on your clamps, you may well be able to pair them up with a little ingenuity to achieve almost double the capacity. You are not wanting a massive amount of pull, just enough to keep the joints nice and snug whilst the glue goes off. Going crazy with clamp pressure just increases risk of the top being pulled out of true. Ideally clamp top and Botton at same time. You can easily make a simple jig to achieve this if you are bit short of suitable clamps, and knock in wedges to make everything tight.

Don't even bother trying to make the top until you have got a clamping system organised.

Rubbed joints is a traditional method described in Joyce and elsewhere. I expect it is shown on-line. I will have a look and post a link if I remember. The success of your table depends greatly on the quality of your edges that face each other. Some people use dowels, biscuits or dominos to assist with alignment.

Use good FRESH glue, not a bottle that has been sat in a hot workshop for 2 years. Don't choose something with a very short clamping time - you want time to adjust. I have done this kind of thing with Titebond (red label) original, animal glue, and original cascamite (before they screwed it up). They all worked fine.

My present kitchen table is glued up in exactly this way. No breadboard ends, no dominos etc. I would happily stand on it. Finished with ROS and OSMO raw.
 
Run the boards lengthways.

I know your veneer was the other way round, but that will look amateurish on a new top.

table top butt jointed.jpg

Rubbed joint here:

IMG_1652.jpeg
 
Thank you, thats orientation sorted.

Thickness;
Would 23 or 24 mm be sufficient?, going on what I saw last time I bought oak there the boards were either 25 or 40 or 50.
40 would be a hell of a waste or a ridiculously heavy table. I doubt I could get much more than 2 x 20 mm out of a 50 , so its most likely going to be a 25 mm board unless I'm lucky.

If 22 is too thin what if I made the outside boards 40 and the inner ones 25? purely to reduce weight?
I could bulk up the thinner ends at the table edge.
Not actually planning on dancing on the table :eusa-naughty: :lol: :lol:

and width.
Lots of 100 mm boards? or 200? or whatever?
 
The whiteish look is because I used Osmo Raw which has a white pigment. I've stopped using it now. The point is the build is extremely simple and this table will stand up to a lot of abuse and you don't need to do anything fancy - just make good joints. There is no way round good joints - gaps will always be gaps and make the top weak.
 
sunnybob":3o2ym7c7 said:
Should the boards run shortways or lengthways?
Click to expand...
Always lengthways. Wood moves across the grain, not along, so you want to lay things out with the shortest cross-grain distance you can.
 
I see you just left the ends squared.
I was thinking of an undercut bevel all the way round, as thats the way the smaller coffee tables are.
Yes? No?
Stephen; thanks got that into my brain now :cool:
 
You can use whatever you like. But as this is your first time and the clamping is a bit suspect, you will have an easier time with thicker boards. I would most certainly not as a first timer faff about with boards of different thickness: that is a recipe for a bowed top when you clamp it.

Weight difference will not be a massive factor. We have to use what we can get. Just make sure if you use thinner boards that they are well supported. Try to get quarter sawn - it makes a huge difference to stability and is worth the extra.

Put your effort into top notch super accurate butt joints and you will be rewarded. This means really fine shavings with the plane so get it very sharp. Do not use your ROS for this job!
 
Undercut bevel is just decoration. Makes no difference. Focus first on getting a strong, flat top.
 
Bob. Try to invest in a copy of Ernest Joyce, Furniture Making. This was first published in 1970, has been revised many times, and frankly tells you everything you will ever need to know about woodwork. I learnt with the Alan Peters revised copy of this book, bought second hand, and published in 1987. I still refer to it sometimes. Adrian

Rubbed joints are dealt with on pages 152 and 153. Probably you can find on-line.
 
No way could I use a hand plane in this project, arthritic hands arent up to it. :cry:
I can get a decent edge on the router table as long as I take extremely fine cuts.
I've watched a couple of videos now on quarter sawn and am confident I know what I'm looking for. I use titebond 3 and its now easily available to me here.

Adrian, my aversion to reference books is mostly knowing that I will never use 99% of the contents. Although a year ago I would have laughed at the idea of me making bedroom furniture.....
 
An aversion to reference books Bob equates to an aversion to proper knowledge :D

Honestly - buy the book second hand. 95% of the internet is garbage.

If you are going to use a router table, make sure you have accurate infeed and outfeed support. You can do it with a very fine cut on a PT if you have one. If you flip every other board using the PT method, any vertical edge inaccuracy evens out. Do it on boards that are too long so that you can discard any snipe.
 
I'm in full blown panic mode.
I've just worked out the likely cost of a complete oak top using all new wood and the long plank method and its looking like 300 euro plus.
I estimated just over a 100 to do it the other way.
Theres no way she's going to agree 300 to repair this table. I think I might have a lot of oak bits in my scrap bin and an ikea dining table by monday night.
Wish I hadnt cut it all down now.
Hold fire on that book.
 
I just might have to find some veneered MDF and reconstruct the thing :eusa-violin: :eusa-violin: :eusa-violin:
 
Was this all just a wind up Bob?

A bit of oak to make a table top that size being €300 seems mad. Did you really chop up the old table before you had wood for the replacement?
 
Adrian, I dont do wind ups, dont have the patience for them.
I had a plan. Resurface the table. That was it.
I had no idea it would develop into a full blown rebuild.
Right now it appears to have been a stupid plan, but I had it.

The difference between what I thought I could do and what has been recommended to me has resulted in almost a quadrupling of the wood I had intended to buy.
I wont know for sure till I get to the woodyard on monday what the actual cost will be, but if its 200 or more, then the price is not worth the result.
Yes, I am stupid enough to chop up the table first, thats whats known as a steep learning curve.
Although in my (very weak) defence, the second I broke through that veneer and exposed the mdf, my fate was sealed.

On the plus side, I have learnt a lot of possibly useful theory, but if I have to resort to veneered MDF, then such is life.

Monday will tell.
 
For the want of anything else to do today, I've been busy cutting up all the table frames, remaking the mortise and tenons (router table and table saw :eusa-clap: :eusa-dance: ) and shortening everything that needs shortening on the apron.
All good practice for me, and all it cost was the electric :cool:

Now its all down to monday. If the oak comes in at under 200, then the full build is on.
If its over 200, then I will have to see what veneered board is available and remake the table with that.

I'm doubting my maths again (who said "very wise?"). :eusa-whistle:
If the new timber measures out at 2 metres x 90 cm x 4cm, what is the percentage of a cubic metre? My little pocket calculator ran out of zero's.
 
(2 x 0.9) x 0.04 = 0.072 cubic metres. So 7.2% of a cubic metre. Presumably excluding waste.
 
But theres a decimal place difference, isnt there?
0.72 and 7.2 ?
I can afford 0.72 I think.
 
No Bob. Look again. It is 0.072 cubic metres. That is less than one tenth of a cubic metre or 7.2%. Did you do sums at school mate? :D
 
For reference there are just over 35 cubic feet in a cubic metre. Therefore you are looking at about two and a half (2.5) cubic feet of wood for this modest sized top, which meets the reasonableness test. Personally I find it much easier to thing of sawn wood in cubic feet.
 
Adrian, I went to a secondary modern school in inner London in the early 60's. It certainly wasnt modern, but it WAS very secondary.
I left that appalling place aged 15 and 1 month and never had a real need for maths again.
I have always struggled greatly with maths on the few occasions I did need it, which is one of the reasons I dont make detailed plans, and why I ask stupid questions.

So the table top in all wood is 7.2% of a cubic metre?
I can visualise that amount.
I just might be able to afford that.
Roll on monday.

Just read your cross over post. I made a determined effort when I came here to convert to metric, and I have been reasonably successful. In this instance, its all about the cost and the woodyard sells by the cubic metre.
:cool: :cool:
 
Metric....

I think of wood as big chunks of oak beams. So they are (say) 8" by 8" and 5 metres long. It's really weird that many people including me use metric for length (except for a man's height and maybe one other measurement) and inches for thickness. I can quite happily use both without seeing any inconsistency.

My wife mixes up cm and mm so I never let her measure anything :D
 
I measure all my stuff in metric BUT if someone says to me or I hear something on the radio along the lines of "there will be 10cm of snow tonight", visually that does not come easily to mind. Now if they'd said 4"...well, I know what that is.
 
Weights I can cope with in metric. Length is still in feet and inches.

I am (normally) 70 kg and 6’2”. Just looked it up, 188 cms just doesn’t sound right.
 
That is not good Andy. I am your height but have never been your weight. How do you do that? Even when I was rowing every day (a boat thing, not arguments) I was 90kg and that was when I was 21.
 
AJB Temple":1mzqxczr said:
That is not good Andy. I am your height but have never been your weight. How do you do that? Even when I was rowing every day (a boat thing, not arguments) I was 90kg and that was when I was 21.
Click to expand...

You need to meet the missus. Married 27 years and the wedding suit still fits :shock: been a 30” waist for as long as I have been buying trousers. Even when I was single I could eat what I wanted and often did. I am one of the lucky ones. Never made an effort but until recently always very fit and healthy.
Lost several kgs while in hospital recently. I have been eating like a horse ever since, snacking during the day and the odd pain au chocolate on the way back from the bakers every day. Not yet gained any of that weight back.


Oh, having read something elsewhere. We are not allowed butter ‘cept at xmas and the missus wont allow cheese anywhere near the house. French and she don’t eat cheess. :shock:
 
Andyp":ccg321iu said:
Weights I can cope with in metric. Length is still in feet and inches.

I am (normally) 70 kg and 6’2”. Just looked it up, 188 cms just doesn’t sound right.
Click to expand...

Before I went metric, I was also 6ft 2. now, i just refer to myself as 180 due to shrinkage :lol:

In my 30s i was as low as 11 1/2 stone (73 kg, had to look that up :shock: ) now in my 70's I struggle to stay at 97 kg (15 1/2 stone, had to look that up too. :lol: )

Next year we celebrate 50 years married, and living with someone who has never knowingly undercatered for that long its amazing I'm not 125 kg. :eusa-doh: :lol: :cool:
 
I was born in 1950, so that makes me 71.

In Celsius I'm 21

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top