fryovanni

What are the drawbacks ? Drawbacks would depend on the application, but I am thinking about possible design issues (shape of parts, look of bolts or screws if visable, possibly added weight(more of an acoustic issue for weight nuts)). All mild issues(if they are even considered issues). The advantages are good for me. I use bolts for my acoustic necks, the inevatable reset will be much gentler on the guitar and easy to perform(that in and of itself is reason enough to sell me). I have NEVER noticed a functional difference. Nothing I really need to mention as I am sure you know all the potential ins and outs of glued vs mechanical joints better than me. On the subject of wood glues. I recall reading a post over at the OLF some time ago. It was by a member that actually had first hand knowledge of the differences in manufacturing some of the glue lines. He mentioned that there was a difference in the makeup of the glues. If I recall correctly it amounted to some consumer grade was a bit more watered down than the higher grade. Hard to understand why that would be when these glues are so darn cheap, but who knows what executives figure makes sense these days. I have a bottle of that LMI white that I have been using for a bit and it seems to be pretty nice(dries a bit harder than what I am used to with Titebond). Might be worth giving it a go next time your ready for a fresh bottle. Peace,Rich

I have never had a chance to use or look closely at a three wheel bandsaw, so I am not much help. On two wheel, (without power hooked up)you want to first be sure the wheels are aligned, that you have the belt properly tightened, that there are no loose parts. You should have some sort of upper and lower guide adjustment, loosen them up so they are well away from the blade. The upper wheel should have both tension adjustment and tilt adjstment, you want to set the tension so the blade(likely the machine has some sort of markes indicating blade size by the tension adjustment), then spin the wheel and watch where the blade is traveling on the wheel. You can adjust where it travels with the tilt adjustment. After you have the blade traveling correctly, you can adjust the guides so that they are almost, but not quite touching the blade(you do not want to deflect the blade, by having the guide touch the blade). You can us a machinist square to check the blade vs the tables squareness. just adjust the table to square(I am again assuming the table is a tilting adjustable table, if not you may want to shim the bolts that hold it till it is square). Spin the wheels one more time and make sure all looks good, then place the covers and try starting it up. You don't want to hear the blade grinding on guides(check your guide adjustment again), and you don't wnt blade flutter(blade is not tensioned enough). If all is going well try cutting a piece of 1" scrap and see how it goes. If it seems to work well, take a flex able tape measure and figure out how long the blade is. You will likely want to pick up a fresh new blade. Rich

Hmm, maybe that is the explanation I'm looking for then. What constitutes a good joint? I've seen random pictures where a hole was drilled in both the wing and the main body and a peg was inserted to add to the joint. Is this what you mean? or are there other ways of creating strong joints? The idea behind using biscuts, dowels, scarf(angle cut joint), mortise & tenion, dovetail, finger etc... over a butt joint(flat square joint) is to develop more surface area for the glued joint(usually because the area to be joined would mainly consist of endgrain if it was butt jointed). Really what joint is best depends on the piece you are glueing, and the orientaion of the grain at the joint(you really want to avoid glueing end grain to end grain). On an acoustic you join the soundboard with a basic butt joint down the center of a two piece top, and the joint glueing surface will wind up being around 1/8" by about 20-21" long. That glue joint should not fail before the wood around it fails. To make sure this type of joint is perfect, you prepair the surface, then use a light source behind the joint and look at it closely. If you see any light you have not got the joint close enough. You can detect the smallest of gaps this way, extreamly accurate. When you prepair that joint you want to go ahead and glue it withing a few hours of doing so, because as the joint sets oils and what have you from the wood start to rise to the surface(creating possible contamination of your nice clean surface). That type of joint suits electric bodies, soundboards, archtop plates and the likes. In the case of a headstock joint, you wind up with a very small surface area, that is primarily end grain if you try a basic butt joint. This is where a different style joint such as a scarf is a good idea. You cut at an angle, this reduces the ratio of endgrain on the surfaces, increases the surface area, allowing for a stronger joint that can be straonger than the surrounding wood. Where the neck attaches to the body is another area that if you use a butt joint you are likely to have mostly endgrain to endgrain with very little surface. A scarf style joint is not practical, so other styles are used(dove tail, M&T most commonly). Mechanical joint(bolts or screws) is also viable and offeres a handful of advantages, along with a couple drawbacks. Do a web search for any of the joints I have mentioned and you will get plenty of pics and examples. These have been used for hundreds(more likely thousands of years). They work, you just need to understand why, where, and what joint fits the needs of the application. Rich

What kinds- What Mattia and Andy listed. Strong enough? The glue is not the weak link if the joint is made properly. The surrounding wood will fail well before the glue. Although if subjected to extream heat, moisture and such it will break down. If you subject a guitar to 160 degrees for a sustained period your going to get failures and the wood itself is not likely to fair well. Subject it to say 250-300 degrees for a relatively short period and you will break the glue down. Rich

The price of Bocote is rising, but so are many woods. It is still similar to Cocobolo,Honduran RW and such in terms of price if not slightly lower. It is a Cordia Sp. not a true Dalbergia(rosewood). Same group as Zircote, although what is commercially sold as bocote is wood from several different species. The demand on all these woods is high and it has been under consideration for CITES regulation. In the coming years, I would count on some regulation and prices will most certainly rise(that would apply to all the rosewood like species from that region).There is a lot of investment going into plantation stock on these woods though, and I would expect much will come from plantation stock in the future(much as we see with genuine Mahogany now). Either way, the price of the wood in that neck is not where the price is coming from. A HUGE price to pay for Bocote would be $50 bd. ft.($15-26 is retail currently)and a neck like that requires about 1 bd. ft. worth of wood. Brazillian RW prices are wildly variable depending on the stock, but it ranges between $150-$600+ bd. ft.(if the piece is nice enough you pretty much name your price, some sucker will buy it)and availability is VERY limited. Bocote can still be purchased at most of the Rocklers or Woodcraft shops(availability is good enough to allow these kind of stores to stock it regularly). Rich

Very cool, sound like that is a thumbs up. Your mentioning feed rate got me thinking. What band speed do you run at(that is an open question to everyone, not just Chris)? Rich P.S. Nice car Chris!

I heard a rumor Plywood is likely moving to CITES 2, and likely headed to the same level as BRW. Gentleman, we had best stock up while we can Rich

I would be happy to be a deputy mod., but it sure seems like with the frequency of these posts it is kinda like handing out more spray bottles to put out the bonfire. I would be happy to donate some cash to a software purchase(I have no idea whether that is a solution, or what that may cost or entail) to help block these posts. On another note. Is it my imagination, or has this place been pretty quiet(in terms of member fueds and mod intervention). Kinda nice, and pretty impressive with the traffic Rich

Yea... the grain isn't getting picked up right in pictures. The flash is really highlighting the slight figuring in the middle, but not really doing anything for the amazing colors that are being displayed on the rest of it. There are a LOT of colors soming out that just aren't shown. BITS: For the back, I used a 1/2" roundover. That may be more than is traditionally used, but I think it really helps the comfort level of the back. For the sides, I went along the template with either a 3/8" or 1/2" flush trim bit. You can still see the evidence of the bearing on the side of the body, just below the glue joint. I haven't sanded the sides down yet. CARVE: I used a shallow cove bit with a bearing to make the "carve line" around the preimeter. I didn't go all the way to the points of the horn because I wasn't sure how steep I wanted to have the carve angle there. For the actual carving, I used an angle grinder with a sanding flapwheel. It isn't your traditionally shaped carve. It's more of a gradual slope than a true archtop-type carve. But... with that being done around the horns, I'm not sure how the binding would look. Honestly, the main reason I want to do the binding is to hide the mistakes around the edges. I'm nervous about it because I don't want to dork it up further. One important lesson I've learned from doing the test carve on the pine and the actual carve on the chechen: set up a makeshift table and DO IT OUTSIDE!!!!! DANG but that dust covered EVERYTHING in my shop. I ain't never doin' THAT inside again! You are going to have a hard time indexing the top to add binding at this point, might be safer to not or try doing it on your practice body first(you will see what I mean about indexing the top). I have never tried a cove bit to set the carve line. I usually use a template bit with an undersized bearing. If I want to bind it I do that in a similar fashion. First routing for the carve line(something like 1/4-3/8" into the body, a little deeper if the carve is stronger), then change the bearing so it is appropriate for the binding thickness and adjust the router down to the proper depth, then cut the channel. If you want you can use a router to ruff out some of the bulk of the material to be carved(kinda like a topograffic map) which also gives you a little reference to carve depth. You can give your self some guide holes with a drill press and go to the grinder if you prefer, or if you are really comfortable just go with the grinder and flap wheel. Hand planes are good too, but thats all up to what you like using. Not sure if that helps much on this project, but maybe a bit of food for thought if you have some scrap and want to give it a try. Actually I think Setch had a tutorial or topic on how he carves that was pretty good, might want to have a look at that also(never hurts to see more methods, so you can pick what works best for you). It might be helpful to stop your carve short of the neck pocket and refine it with a rasp. I like to make that area much steeper than the rest of the body to maintain more material around the pocket and a cleaner line in relation to the neck and fretboard(personal taste though ) Rich

Dre, Roman is spot on the money No need to jack the neck way up with that huge ugly block. You just need to angle the neck so it is aiming up to the bridge. Just as Roman mentioned stack material in the front of the pocket, the heel of the neck and back of the pocket should be touching(no shimming at the back, this is just to get a good estimate of the required taper). You can use that beam you showed in your earlier pictures to tell you when the angle is high enough to hit the bridge correctly. After you have it at the right angle, measure the thickness of your shim material at the front of the pocket, and use that to determine how thick you need the shim at that end(you may want to start with a slightly thicker shim than you figure you need, so you can bring it down to a perfect fit). Be sure the shim is long enough to run all the way from the front of the pocket to the back after you are finished adjusting it. You want at least a wisper of shim material at the back of the pocket to ensure you fully seat the neck to the shim(if the shim didn't go all the way to the back of the pocket you could have a gap between the neck and shim). Be sure that the shim is equally thick from side to side at the ends, and the shim has nice flat surfaces. It will be a very small piece, so take your time and don't get too agressive when you are making it, slow and accurate. If you don't have a small dial caliper to accurately measure thickness, you may want to pick one up (they can be had for less than $20) and it will really make measuring much easier(and will help you feel more confident that you are accurate). Rich

I have a bass with no truss also, but the neck is a modulus graphite neck so it is not built as most necks are. It does have adjustment in the pocket, but this is only a tilt adjustment. Graphite is not effected by normal changes in humidity as wood will be, and does not creep over time under tension. The neck is designed to remain sufficiently rigid under tension, and the materials are selected to keep it that way. It is a risky method that needs serious attension to these details if you make a neck this way. A much smarter approach if you don't have this dialed in and have a particular reason for wanting this in a neck. Is to go with a good quality double acting truss rod. Even if I use some carbon fiber reinforcements I use a truss, it would have to be a full on carbon fiber neck if I considered no truss(even then I don't see a disadvantage in having the truss). Rich

That Chechen should have a great reflectance when finished, I bet it will be quite striking in person(probably tricky to capture in a photo though). What router bit are you using for your roundover/carve? Rich

Nut, headstock veneer, bridge pins, binding, if your doing a bolt on-inserts/bolts/washers, strap pins, finishing materials. Sounds like you have a pretty good list. You should do some browsing around the MIMF and OLF for jigs, and tools. One thing that seems to hold pretty true of most books, the methods and jigs used are usually a little outdated(meaning even the author currently has taken to using different methods and jigs). You will do best if you take the time to make good jigs and molds. Things like side form bending with heat blankets, binding jigs, molds, radiused sanding dishes, go bar decks, rosette routing jig and so forth will go a long way to making your build both more accurate and enjoyable. It takes a bit of effort and time up front, but it is well worth it. Also get a handle on humidity control before you start working, even if your shop is relatively stable it is good to understand what is happening during critical point in your build. I am not sure how you are set up for tools, but sharpening and tuning up your bladed tools is really important in acoustic building, it is worth spending the time to tune up and really sharpen things up. Rich

Really ??? From what you wrote above that, I would assume the exact opposite. Get yourself on a decent acoustic repair forum, where they'll steer you right. (Even if they seem mean, they're trying to steer you right). Project guitar forum = pitiful for vintage restoration work advice. +1 Pitiful for vintage repair or restoration is a VERY gentle way to put it. I know there are a few guys who have a few from scratch acoustics under their belt, but I can't think of many very experienced acoustic repair folks, especially vintage or historic specialists. Much larger skill set involved in repair and restoration. FWIW; if your goal is to keep the original wood and bracing in tact, Soaking in hot water is the last thing I would go to. Rich

You can go to a print house and have it printed. If you plot it as a full size PDF they usually an print for about .25 cents per. square ft.(36" x 48"= 12 sq. ft.). Extra copies of the original will usually cost about half that per. sq. ft. Well worth plotting full size over messing with taping a bunch of sheets and hoping you get the job done spot on. Rich

Most "plywood" is oriented at 90 degrees(the common stuff). When you get into aircraft grade plywood there are more options because it is purpose built, but that is expensive stuff. LVL is probably closer to what we think of as laminated wood. Your right about the cost, if you buy high quality laminated wood it is going to cost more than solid, there is more cost to produce if they are using all clear high quality wood. Rich

A picture would help a lot. It is hard to gauge how much gap you are talking about. Depending on the type of wood, how wide the gaps are will give an idea as to the best way to proceed. If the gaps are very large and filling is likely to be a poor match, you may want to redo the route with an improved router jig that will index better. Very small gaps can be fixed with relative ease as long as the wood can be matched well(darker woods are usually easier to match). If your route is allready the full depth of the binding(1/4" if that is the size of the binding you are using). You can always add a fine line accent strip to build the height(say .010-.020" black accent). FWIW, getting a really good binding route is a HUGE challenge, the right jig is just the ticket. Getting a good look is well worth the effort. Rich

Here is a bit of research material from the forest products labs(our tax dollars working for us)-link. There is more test data there than I suspect any of us has time and or moneys to collect privately. Here is a link that gives a bit more info on plywood, and grading-link Surface grading-link A link giving info on what makes Marine grade different from common grades of plywood(as well as a note on epoxy)-link A bit of info from Westsystem epoxy on differences in plywood-link This may be interesting to some of you also. A lot of great information presented from the aircraft field(they seem to be a little better funded when it comes to gathering information about the use of wood, joints, structural methods and such than us).-link Thought those might be handy links, Rich

Carving standard ply will be very different from carving solid wood FWIW. You would do better to carve something like pine so you could get used to carving with the grain. Plywood depending on the grade is going to be wildly variable in terms of stability(higher grades made with clear wood will be very stable, low grade who knows). Strength and stiffness will vary with low grade ply because of the wood and standards applied to what wood can be used to make that plywood. If you use a lower grade(what you will find at home depot or lowes) it will be pure dumb luck if it remains stable enough for a neck, and from sheet to sheet/ section to section your stiffness will vary. It directly relates to the grading and what materials meet that minimum standard. You are not going to get meaningful information for first time builders, at best you will get lucky with the bits you use (that is nothing to hang your hat on in a recommendation to beginners who don't need to add the headache of using less predicatble wood to their list of obstacles to overcome). It may be fine for an experienced woodworker who can understand what they are up against, but not good for a beginner. The cost of CF is going to be much higher than the small difference in the cost of wood. Nothing wrong with what you propose though, actually it is a great idea. Look at Douglas Fir, very cheap and available at HD or Lowes, much stiffer(outstanding weight to strength for sure). It is soft and may ding a bit more than harder woods, but we realise that(acceptable). Spend some time selecting just the right boards that have great orientation, and let them dry for a spell so you know they are stable. The body or wings won't need near the strength, so Pine would be ok, DF will probably hold screws better. I think Doug Fir is not a substandard tonewood, it is actually pretty outstanding. This whole high cost of wood debate seems a little silly to me. We are talking about 1 board foot of wood for a neck blank. Hard Rock Maple lumber sells for a whole $5-6 bd. ft. A body blank is going to amount to a whopping 4 board foot worth of wood. There are many woods that will run between $3-5 bd. ft (Alder, Poplar, Ash, Soft Maple, khaya, Sapele, Basswood and so forth....). How much are you going to save vs that $12-20 bit of solid hardwood??? We are talking about $30 or less for wood, and the only compramise is selecting and buying kiln dried clear lumber. Sure you can buy a construction grade pine for .75 cents bd.ft., or low grade ply for about $1 bd. ft., but we are only talking about 5 bd. ft. worth of wood here. I would never recommend a wood that is going to be lesser when you are talking about all of maybe $25 difference at the most for an entire guitars worth of wood(we are talking about the price of a box of strings guys, or a couple of junky cords). Practice on $1 bd. ft. pine what the heck. Select good bits of pine, dry them well and use them for a body, sure as long as you recognise the hardness may be more prone to denting(it will be light though, and pine is very resonant). Perfectly acceptable wood is cheap for solid bodies, I see no need to look for risky alternatives(especially for beginners). You want to help a beginner save a few bucks, help them find a local hardwood dealer, help them understand what to look for in wood that will give you a more stable instrument, help them understand what proper drying of the wood they use means. This way they won't have to pay the premium to have a dealer do these things for them, or pay high shipping costs. Rich

I had a reply, but after reading it I think it was too harsh and would be taken wrong. There are real issues with this grade of plywood and building instruments. Issues that relate to both stability and to workability (without even getting into a "tone" debate). I wouldn't build an instrument with this grade of plywood, and I take no issue with good quality laminated wood(plywood). I would hope these considerations are brought up honestly, for the sake of the new builder reading this thread who will see all these guys saying cool go for it, and assume it is reliable. Rich

It is a bit of common sense, and understanding the material as well as the application. If you want to use high grade void free plywood say for a neck. Potentially it is just fine. That said how much do you trust the maker of that plywood to have selected stock that you want used on your instrument(defect free, grain oriented as you prefer), how much do you trust the method used for joining that wood? Is the wood well dried? and so on and so forth.... There are high end laminate necks built all the time by top builders(that is plywood). There are high grade laminated bodies built also. These are NOT to be confused with plywood made for other generic structural purposes(your home depot plywood, or potentially med. grade baltic birch ply). This type of laminate must be made with select wood, attension to the layup must be given, and it must be joined with very high quality standards. A "good" grade plywood is fine for clocks, speaker cabnets, jigs, cabnets and so forth. This does not make them the best choice for an instrument. You will probably pay more money for a purpose built plywood than you would for clear solid wood. Rich

I am pretty sure it is just what you called it. Trade names Carribean Rosewood,AKA Chechem, Poisonwood(never heard it called that though). species(Metopium brownei), not a true rosewood(dalbergia). It is popular for turning and what not, and is a nice looking wood. I think Carribean Rosewood is used a lot by the hardwood floor industry(use of the trade name that is), Personally, I would call it Chechem as it is often traded by that name in most woodworking circles. It can be a real bargain if you find a good looking piece, as it usually is about a $10-12 bd. ft. lumber., you will occasionally find it with nice strong figure(the turners eat that stuff up). Hobby house usually has good pics when your trying to ID woods-link Peace,Rich Edit; Your right, anyone certainly has the right to sell whatever they want, and I am sure there are a lot of people who do just that. The responce from people on this forum(negative) to selling guitars or even parts like this without having enough experience to know if your doing things correctly or making brutal begginer mistakes that you will not recognise until after you have experience(guitars and parts long since sold at that point). Will definately come back to hurt you if you ever try to build a reputation as competant skilled builder(where you can actually justify charging a fair rate for your skilled labor). If you just plan to sell off a few bits and pieces as hobbiest projects and never develop a reputation as a professional builder, it really wouldn't make much of a difference. As far as the bits you sell being right, wrong or whatever. If you are honest and state you have little to no experience making instruments, and this is just a bit of your work as a new hobbiest. Well that is pretty honest, and I don't see how the buyer could be mislead. A lot of people that sell their handywork try to give the impression that they are professionals and fully know what they are doing and that the work will be professionally exicuted. I don't think that is right or fair to the consumer, but hey that is also just the way some people do this stuff(good lord look around on ebay, you will find reputable sellers and the biggest hacks around, course you can find that anywhere). Rich

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. A lot of what I use my sander for is post resawing(acoustic sets, soundboards), but I also make a lot of bindings veneer plates, and other misc. parts or blanks. Most of the time I am looking to remove about .010-.015" total to surface both sides from backs, sides, or soundboards to clean them up. Things like bindings I am targeting .08" or .06"(ruff sawing to about .090-.100") by 1/4", however I run a lot of them through with each pass, so I am often monitoring the bits as they feed in and need both hands available. Most of the time I use 80 grit, occasionally I may step it up to a higher grit, but not too often. A lot of repetitive stuff. If I was surfacing one set or blank for a project it wouldn't make much difference if it took a couple extra minutes(I hope I wouldn't be in that much of a rush anyway). As long as the sander is reliable and accurate it would work for me. Rich Since you mentioned industrial though , I am looking to pick up a larger sander(maybe/hopefully belt) to try to control the heat when I sand the oily dense stuff. Man that ruins sandpaper fast .

It looks like you have built a very nice tool there. Very smart design It is hard to judge how easy to use, accurate, and reliable it will be from pictures, but it sounds like you have had some good test results. When you think about what you are spinning there and the forces acting on the tool, getting good results shows you have some solid woodworking and engineering skills. I made a thickness sander, and it worked(I did not have a converyor). When I compair it to my performax, I would say #1 the motor driven conveyor(variable speed) is a huge improvement over no conveyor, I am sure it is easier than a hand cranked conveyor(but the hand powered solution is clever and will be MUCH better than nothing). My drum and table was accurate, but did start to show wear and would not take heavy abuse, the performax has been bullet proof. The drum on the one I build did not disapate heat well(actually the heat is a constant fight on any drum sander) and dense or oily woods did in the sand paper much faster than the performax. Table adjustments were ok on my table(this machine looks well thought out) but not as reliable and easy to fine tune as the performax. Bottom line, I would not build my own over buying with what I know now. I built my own because I thought it looked simple enough, and I could get my sander for a few bucks less. The performax is so easy to use, accurate, and reliable that I actually use it a LOT more than my home built sander. They are actually very useful tools. You get so many years worth of good use out of a good drum sander that I think the expense is easy to justify(even though I had to save my pennies and talk the wife into letting me buy it). I think you will find most people who build and buy a drum sander will give you a similar review. Rich

I think your question is loaded. How vibration or sound transmits may be something to consider(don't forget that is a dynamic variable, as temp. and moisture significantly effect this, and I am figuring you are considering orientation because it is a huge variable in the speed that sound travels through wood, Glue factor? I am sure it is a major factor, but probably so overshadowed by other factors that it is a small part of the equation when the joint is well made). At some point you have to look at wood for what it is, mostely fibers held together with glue(cellulose and lignin). How wood moves when forces act upon it may be a consideration, how heavy an instrument is will also effect the way it reacts with string vibraction. All real considerations. Also to be considered the effects of dimensional changes and stresses on the wood(again dynamic, but real). In the end I think I have come to the conclusion the glue/dampening debate is dead in my head as long as the joints are well made, I have never percieved a notable issue. You have to research, then apply what you learn to real world and see if it holds true. Trust the real world results, even if you can't explain it, then if you can recreate your results you may be on to something solid. If you can explain why something works one way in theory, yet the real worl results proves otherwise. The theory does not hold weight. Vibrations bouncing around being dampended by wood glue and this stopping the strings from vibrating? Placing a neoprene block under a string causes the string to stop vibrating? Both sound possible, but a real world test is likely the only way to evaluate. Even at that trying to isolate and quantify the effect of the glue is going to be very difficult in such a complex model, at least with the block you could add and subtract it for a better comparison. Rich