Thread: Using bits and pieces

Bernie very nice a mix of timbers it looks great
You have opened the mind to bigger things

Originally Posted by BernieP

G'Day All

A vase, present for Christmas. Bowl and foot one piece of campor laurel hollowed, first ring silky oak, staves alternate silky oak and australian red cedar, second ring red cedar, rim silky oak. 25cm high bowl 16cm, opening and stem 5cm. Finished with 80 thru 400, good coat of Ubeaut EEE, one coat of shellawax so far but more to follow. Comments good and bad welcome ...............

Ya probably know I'm not a fan of segmented stuff but that somehow works for me Bernie - possibly the 'noisy' Camphor . Would have liked to see it a bit thinner but the shape is cool.

Originally Posted by BernieP

I'm afraid can't get used to putting them in critique section (my opinion seperate section not needed).

....and I thought it was just me!

[ . Would have liked to see it a bit thinner but the shape is cool.
...

Yep that goes for me as well.

.and I thought it was just me!

[/QUOTE]

As to the critique section, yep again.

I don't know about "thinner" but would've liked to see the neck a bit slenderer (is that a word? ) and not so "straight-sided" but what you've made is probably more usable in real world terms.

I like the combination of woods... it's a mix I'd never have chosen in a million years.

Looks fine to me. Interesting contrast of the staves: almost pure grain pattern differences with almost the same colours.

I disagree about the stem thickness. The proportions here look just about right. Thinner would make the base look too fat IMHO. As far as straight sides are concerned, the curve seems to have a fat spot about 3cm from the top, but only by a mm or so (measured on screen, so my MMV).

Congratulations to your recipient(s) - sure to be pleased.

Critique section: Me too; seems like an unnecessary detour.

Joe

G'Day fellas

Thanks for comments, thats the beauty of this forum when you say it I can certainly see it is a bit straight sided and heavy looking, so will take that on board for next attempt, by the way forgot to mention black is some inclusions of sap but mainly voids filled with coffee grounds and 5 minute araldite mixed as a putty and let set.

Cheers
Bernie

I really like it, but thats just me.

Critique section: Me too; seems like an unnecessary detour.

G'Day Joe

Thanks for the comments, and must admit all measuring whilst turning was done by sight so must start using calipers, if I can find them in the mess.

G'Day Skew

I guess strange wood choice but didn't want too much colour contrast, I feel I'm starting to really benefit from you blokes ideas and tutoring over the last 18 or so months.

Cheers
Bernie

This is NOT a critique of Bernies' work!!
I have reservations generally about laminated work as I don't believe that, unlesss turned very thin, the various timbers expanding at different rates will eventually cause joint failure. Please feel free to criticise my criticism...

G'Day Christopha

I take all information on board and thankyou for yours, furthur to what you say does the orientation of the different grains cause this or is it the make up of the different woods themselves (density, weights etc)?

Cheers
Bernie

Sorry. Can't help sticking my nose in.

But... both.

Different orientations is the major cause of fractured joints, (which is exacerbated because it'll also have weaker end-grain to end-grain/side-grain joints in different directions) but I've seen seg work fail even when all aligned in one direction. FWIW, I'd call circumferentially a "direction" too, although pedants would disagree.

Most of the failed seg work I've seen has been the sides have cracked because they've shrunk more than the foot (well.. the disk that the rings are built up on) or, in rarer cases, the foot has shrunk more and fallen out. Only a few have been actual layers separating and you could say they were given an assist... like some clumsy clot dropping 'em.

Of course, if you have a table of the expansion co-efficients for all the woods you're using you could work out which ones are least likely to cause problems when matched together... but who really wants to get that anal about it?

Don't let the above stop you from making 'em though... they look good and with careful planning you can make pieces that last.

G'Day Skew

After reading your advice on the weakness of glue joints, am I right in assuming that the most doubtful section for longevity is the staved sections as they are end grained top and bottom to face grain and sideways face grain to face grain?

Cheers
Bernie

Well, I'd say where the staves meet the top or bottom rings are the most likely candidates.

The weaker joints won't cause a failure... but are most likely where it'll fail. (If it does. It may outlast you and me both. )

Because the majority of timbers expand more across the grain than they do along the grain, even two pieces of the same timber will really stress the joint if glued together in different grain orientation.

Actually, I've got a prime example of this sitting in front of me right now. A goblet with a celtic knot inlay. It's not actually segmented, as such, but has exactly the same problem. Unfortunately, because I turned it so thinly, instead of the joint failing it has split along the grain on opposite sides of the rim. This thing's supposed to be one of my entries in the Lilydale Show next week or so...

G'Day Skew

As usual thanks

Cheers
Bernie