You are here

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
grumpybear
grumpybear's picture
Squaring up cants

I am looking for advice on squaring up cants especially for the larger logs.  Any tips and tricks would be greatly appreciated.

wayne busse
wayne busse's picture

When I'm cutting beams and I want to make sure they end up square, I make the first couple cuts then flip the log 180°. This ensures two sides are parallel, then rotate the cant 90° and use a framing square to make the third side square to the first two. Some folks use a level but I find the square to be a little more accurate.

If I'm cutting one inch boards I use a level since it's not imperative that edges be at perfect right angles. The boards will have to be run across a jointer in the finishing process anyway.

This assumes you've leveled the blade to be parallel to the bunks, the only way to make a parallel cut. If you measure the sides after the cant is cut parallel to the first side and they aren't the same, the blade is not true to the bunks. Time to readjust the blade guides.

grumpybear
grumpybear's picture

Wayne,,

Thanks for the info. I will make sure I give all that a shot.

r.garrison1
r.garrison1's picture

I've squared the blade to the bunks, but don't worry about the stops being at right angles; i'm considering some options for cam-based stops that I can adjust easily.

I also use a level, and shim a couple bunks if I need for the square cut. Once I get a good right angle, I stop worrying about it.

Bill
Bill's picture

I square it to the bunks after the first cut then all the rest of the cuts have to be square if the blade is parallel to the bunks.

Post Oakie
Post Oakie's picture

Depends on the log and the end product.  For smaller logs, I use a level, because squaring to the stops requires them to be higher than I usually want them, and then I cut into them.  Not an issue with a hydraulic mill, since it is easy to lower the stops after you square up the log.  Log stops work for larger logs, because there is enough contact area to get a good reference and still have the stops low enough to not be a problem.  It doesn't hurt to just touch the blade to the log to scratch the end, then use a carpenter's square to check it, though.

Baron
Baron's picture

All this good chatter is making the argument for an edger.

Grandpa
Grandpa's picture

I use a level but also use a speed square . Sits nicely on a bunk to check square . Also the edge fits nicely on the cut surface when checking the second cut . The 12 inch size is not clumsy like a steel square . I also keep some plastic felling wedges handy . When all else fails shim at the crossbunks . Some are off no matter how hard I try . That is when I shim the cant to correct the cant to square .

Post Oakie
Post Oakie's picture

One thing i've learned about the level is that it is easiest to turn the log half way around for the second slabbing cut so that it has a flat side to sit on.  That way, when you turn the log a quarter turn for the third slabbing cut, you have a flat side facing you so that you can hold the level where you can see it while you clamp it.  Pretty comical dance, holding the log with the cant hook with one hand, the level in the other, and standing on one foot while I kick the clamp in place.

eddiemac
eddiemac's picture

Yeah, I know the feeling.  But, with the Lumbermate 2000, the tall log posts get me accurate enough (I cut for myself) that I very rarely use a square or level.  My jointer does the precision work.

Baron
Baron's picture

Postie I can just see you doing that Okie Dance. It must be similar to my dance. I can hardly wait to have my Jointer on-line. Only so many hours in a day.....

 

P.O. Deliberately cutting opposing sides for the reasons you stated is brilliant and I'm going to adapt that once I start cutting again. Thanks

r.garrison1
r.garrison1's picture

I've found that it depends on the sise of the log. For 20" +/-, I recently started using an engineering square on the short side; works adequately and fast.I've been considering some cam-based adjustment for square; I'm not too fond of the existing log stops on the LM29.

grumpybear
grumpybear's picture

I also have the LM 29 and  have to agree about the log stops.  There are a few things about this mill that drive me crazy. The log dog and such..

wayne busse
wayne busse's picture

I like the rests and dogs on my 36, I wonder why Norwood didn't use them on both mills...

Baron, don't give Dave all the praise for his technique in post # 9, go back and read post # 2. Great minds think alike. Lol.

Baron
Baron's picture

Yep Wayne, I realized that soon after I wrote it. Sorry. I can't credit you for the dance though as your method skips the dance part of the routeine.

 

I like the Rests on the HD36 also but some of the competitors dogs are much more accurate wheras mine flex all over when trying to square up a heavy cant. While the dogs do work they are imprecise and could use some help. I'm not sure if any of the cam style dogs that I've seen would be any better.

wayne busse
wayne busse's picture

Yeah, they're a little sloppy but most of the time most of us are cutting 1" and its not that critical. If I'm cutting bigger lumber I take the time to check with a square. If I'm cutting beams I really pay attention.

We could solve the problem and pay $40,000.00 for a woodmizer. I'll stick to my $11,000 Norwood.

Hey, I just thought of something, has Latham farm ever reported on the change in blade speed?

grumpybear
grumpybear's picture

I've actually been thinking about a timber king.  Any thoughts on those?