Timeline for Ripping vs Resawing - is there a reason for the difference?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:29 | comment | added | Jacob Edmond | It most certainly will be a factor to consider, but I have not encountered any case where it factors into the definitions of either type of cut. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:02 | comment | added | Isaac Kotlicky | I'm really curious if the popular wisdom that "orientation of the grain doesn't matter" is scientifically accurate. Sawing a consistent set of alternating density rings (quartersawn), the blade will encounter a consistent set of forces throughout the cut. Whereas a riftsawn pattern will lead to alternations between all low density and all higher density wood portions in the same wood. Logically, one would expect more sway in the cut for the latter case than the former... | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | Jacob Edmond | The technical reasons are related to the mechanics of the cut, not the grain orientation. It does matter, when the thickness and width of the board are different. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:15 | comment | added | Isaac Kotlicky | That's not really a technical reason then. So your answer is "No, it's just convention" and "it doesn't matter." Ok. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:03 | comment | added | Jacob Edmond | I haven't ignored it, I've simply explained that the orientation of the cross-grain is not a factor in the definition of these cuts, and you are saying you think it should be. The only way grain factors in, is both cuts are different than a cross-cut in that they are parallel to the face grain. You already know that, as you have stated as well. Any further discussion or conclusions we come to here will not affect the way those terms are used, or have been used for centuries, in the world of woodworking. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 13:52 | comment | added | Isaac Kotlicky | I already know that a resaw is the thickness and ripping is the width - that's implicit in the question. So you've answered the 4x4, but you've effectively ignored the remainder of my question. the "fundamental difference" is the precautions we take in the sawing and how much we consider binding and bowing. All of which as I stated in the question are changes in degree not type. The 4x4 is an extreme example but not erroneous, it was intentionally chosen to show the arbitrariness of the terminology. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 13:26 | comment | added | Jacob Edmond | It is relative to ripping the 1x4 though, which is where there difference is. The terms change not at a specific dimension, but relative to the cuts for a single board. Cutting the thickness of a board vs the width. You are using the 4x4 as an erroneous example. The reality is, resawing that 1x4 is fundamentally a different operation than ripping that 1x4. If I am telling a sawyer how to cut a board, and I tell him to rip it in half, he will make two 1x2s. If I tell him to resaw it in half, he will make two 0.5x4 boards. If you do the same for a 4x4, it doesn't matter which term ultimately. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 13:13 | comment | added | Isaac Kotlicky | I understand that. I also went over that in the question itself. And no, resawing a 1x4 inch wide board is not "burying your blade in more material" than ripping a 4x4. The stressors have to do with the depth of the material irrespective of the type of cut. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 13:11 | history | answered | Jacob Edmond | CC BY-SA 3.0 |