Re: Processing Rails & Stiles for Cabinet Doors: Space Balls compatibility with 3/8¡± groove
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Lucky,I believe you are correct that with 3/4¡± thickness, deeper than 3/8¡± could potentially have issues. I was asked to duplicate a sample and in this case the rear lip of the groove is only 1/8¡± thick. However, since most of us can choose the stile/rail thickness, carrying out custom work, I would prefer deeper groove. You and David K have provided some ideas that I can work with in future. Thank you. Imran Malik IAM Wood Creations On Jan 3, 2025, at 8:09?PM, David Luckensmeyer via groups.io <david@...> wrote:
?
Hi Imran:
Do you think the standard 1/4 x 3/8 has to do with mass production using 3/4 material? At 1/4 wide, that leaves only 1/4 of material on either side of the groove, assuming the groove is centred. If the groove is deepened beyond 3/8, the material
¡°shoulder¡± becomes more and more fragile.?
I like working with thicker material and deeper grooves and tongues. Consequently I had Greg at Rangate make me a cabinet shaker set that works with material from 19-30mm (approx) and has a 15mm deep groove/tongue.?
Alternatively, in cases where a squared look is wanted/acceptable, I like using 25-30mm material and using an adjustable groover to go much deeper, say 25-30mm deep. Cheers.?
Warm regards,
Lucky
Dr David Luckensmeyer?
Designer & Maker
@luckensmeyer
M: 0413 013 115
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Philip Snyder via groups.io <pswoodworking@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2025 8:17:38 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FOG] Processing Rails & Stiles for Cabinet Doors: Space Balls compatibility with 3/8¡± groove ?
When I have crafted doors and full raised panels for entry doors, any deeper wider dadoes with floating panels I have bought sheets of thick rubber to address the issue and works fine. I like the idea of balls not rolling away, I¡¯ll have
to try that type. Cheers
|
imran