Can the I-box be used to make 6 or 8 sided boxes or is it limited to 90 degree joints? I have a silly idea to make some hexagonal boxes that will stack together within another larger hexagonal box. Probably a silly idea but it could be interesting.
Printable View
Can the I-box be used to make 6 or 8 sided boxes or is it limited to 90 degree joints? I have a silly idea to make some hexagonal boxes that will stack together within another larger hexagonal box. Probably a silly idea but it could be interesting.
Whilst I have one .... I haven't use it yet so perhaps that speaks to my expertise on the matter :q.
It would seem that it is restricted to 90 deg joins in its typical setup. As the dado set or router bit passes through the bottom of the finger will be at 90 deg.
If you wanted to create an angle other than 90 deg it would be necessary to insert an angle block behind the stock to tilt the stock towards the blade. That way when the dado set or router bit passes through then the bottom of the finger will not be at an angle other than 90 deg. Having not used the Ibox yet I cannot comment on how feasible it would be to put the angle block behind the stock, but I don't think it would be ideal.
Another thought would be to create the angle on the runners. This would tilt the entire Ibox forward, including the stock that will allow the bottom of the fingers to be cut on an angle. Securing the stock in the Ibox will be the same as standard and it would maintain accuracy as the angle runners will be consistent.
Well, that makes sense, as the sides would be at 60 degrees.....but is there sufficient space to allow for the angled spacer blocks and the side of the box? It looks like the maximum capacity of the front clamp/support block is 32mm which may not be enough for the 2 wedges and 12mm of box side. Looks like more research needed.
Thanks for the reply, off to the shed to cut a spacer block and take some measurements.
Let us know how it goes. I would be inclined (pardon the pun) to try attaching an angled wedge to the underside of the runners that ride in the mitre gauge slots. This way there is no mucking around with packers when trying to secure the stock (box sides) which I think could cause alignment issues.
Adding to, or increasing the height of, the guide runners might just lift the whole sled thing to a point where the router bit will have to be sitting well proud of the table, or at least that's the way it looks from what I can see on the
UTube videos of the jig in use. Perhaps there is another jig that I can modify that will do a similar job, it's just that the IBox seems so well thought out and I really only want to buy one jig......Decisions, decisions.
You are correct that the bit would need to extend further. I plan on using mine with a dado set on the table saw so the additional height would not be an issue.
As the jig travels across the blade, due to it's new sloping configuration, won't the blade, which is now higher and more exposed than normal for a box joint, get closer to your fingers than it would if the jig was level? Without the jig in front of me it's hard to visualise how it will look so I could easily be wrong. I just tend to worry about these things.
HiQuote:
Originally Posted by Old Hilly
I suppose it could be done, my main concern would be clamping it firmly enough to be safe, as it would mean the workpiece is touching the fence at the bottom (table side) so the expanding fingers of the iBox are straddled correctly.
I'd be very interested to see the results of a trial box.
regards
Grahame
I am thinking there would need to be a pair of wedge-shaped blocks of the correct angles attached to the jig so that the work was held at the correct angle. But is there enough room and can you see the cutter? The Locating device should contact at least the bottom of the slot but I didn't want to go out and buy an IBox only to find out it won't do what I need it to do. Looks like I may be in the minority of IBox users here. Depending on the angle you may need to use the jig back-to-front so you can see the locating peg because the work piece is hanging over it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwhat
I don't see a need for wedge blocks..... You could cut longer finger joints (as normal) and then mate the pieces together at 60 deg angle (hexagon) where the inside joins are flush (see no fingers) and then just trim off the excess on the outer side? If you get my meaning?
I think I get the idea......I will have to work on it...Too early in the morning.....But you could be right.
Hi Guys
I had reason to call the Incra guys in Texas, amongst other things I asked if they had seen anyone making joints at other than 90 degrees on the iBox, the answer was NO!! but they didn't say it was impossible?
They added the additional concern of guarding??? That said, be careful, particularly on the tablesaw if that's what your using?
Regards
Grahame
I would suspect that there would be a gap on the outside of the box as the bottom of the finger (where it meets your hand) needs to reflect the angle you are trying to achieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regdop
I’m not sure why I didn’t think of this earlier but if you use your own fingers interlocked it gives a good visual of what the joint will do :)
Am I the only wierdo that thinks boxes need not be square? That being said, I suspect most people would make a box with 90 edge corners. But thanks for asking anyway, I may have to think of some other method, perhaps splines in the corners or Dominos if I make the sides a bit thicker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwhat
That's a fair point, there would be a wedge-shaped gap down in the bottom of the join but that gap would be on the inside of the join (I think, just looking at my interlaced fingers) but there would still need to be some creative disguising happening (filler and velvet lining?) on the inside. The outside is easy enough with the bandsaw, just trim the overhanging ends and finish-sand everything smooth. Maybe use the offcuts from the outside to fill the spaces on the inside and then cover it all with something nice? Veneer of some sort?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot