Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
User avatar
By deema
#1336694
You can do it by allowing the whole panel thickness to slip inside the handle, however the handle would have to be thicker in order for it accommodate the entire thickness of the panel to slide inside. (You could rebate the panel on the back also, to reduce the width of the groove, however you will still need a thicker handle.
By That would work
#1336696
No not breadboard ends... that's for when the tImber is independent of a frame.
As you know the panel (if solid timber) will move across the grain but practically nothing along.
You won't completely stop this regardless of what second seasoning you employ. Today's 8% centrally heated air can't be relied upon to be consistent for the pieces lifetime.
So if you want the panels face to be flush with the frames face you will need to have a way of disguising the inevitable movement across the grain. So a straightforward tongue (barefaced so like a rebate) goes along the end grain of the panel and into the rails to sit flush on the front.
The vertical with grain edges on the panel also have the same tongue but because the panel WILL move you need a way of disguising it so a bead moulding with the tongue on the edges (that meet the stiles) will do that. A solid panel of around 400mm say can easily gain or loose 3 or 4 mm.
User avatar
By Trevanion
#1336698
I didn't really understand what I was looking at yesterday but looking at it again I see where you're coming from, you're going to put a rebate on three edges of the panel so that it's flush with the external face but leave one edge that goes into the handle full size so your expansion and contraction happens there rather than the other end where you'd inevitably get a gap?

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work so long as the panel is fixed to the gapless side, just be aware that the stiles and rails are also liable to move slightly which may lead to a gap on that side as well as top and bottom so it might be worth having a shadow gap of say 1mm to hide that movement.
By Sgian Dubh
#1336702
deema wrote:You can do it by allowing the whole panel thickness to slip inside the handle, however the handle would have to be thicker in order for it accommodate the entire thickness of the panel to slide inside.


I think he's incorporated a groove in his proposed handle (see attached image) wide enough to accept the full thickness of the panel. But, looking at the rest of the construction, I'm not altogether sure the simple tongue and groove joint holding the corner of the handle/stile to the top and bottom rail is strong enough. It could theoretically work for a solid wood panel glued to the opposite stile and all the expansion and contraction taking place within the panel wide groove in the handle.

Having said that, I'd probably first explore the veneered panel option (as already suggested by others) to achieve an end result of the panel and framing of the same thickness, similar to veneered table tops, plus lipping. Using that technique, the handle could be simply attached to the door's front face, perhaps using biscuits or similar for alignment, plus adhesive, or even just glue and screw, although this leaves a visible screw head on the door's inside face, which I suppose could be covered with a pellet or similar. Slainte.
Attachments
Handle.jpg
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1336716
By gluing the opposite side to the stile, and allowing everything else just to float. Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve sitting the un-glued, un-pinned panel in a rebate and just hoping that it stayed there.
User avatar
By woodbloke66
#1336725
That would work wrote:It's not unusual to have a panel set flush in a frame. Hence the bead and butt type methods.
I think the OP wanted to have a flush panel with no movement provision around the panel edge. (What you refer to as gaps?)
Not really possible with a solid panel.

What you're trying to do here is to go counter to centuries of perceived wisdom and good practice. A solid panel will move; indeed solid timber will move (as discussed yesterday in the thread about mitred corners on a 600mm wide solid wood top) alarmingly and you need to make allowances for that movement. If you want the panel to be entirely flush, with no 'gaps' where it meets the rails and stiles then the easiest and simplest way is to use veneered panels. The caveat of course, is that you need to know how to cut your own bandsawn veneers, join them and then lay them to produce the panel.
When I'm doing a project I usually always say to myself ...."what's the easiest way to do this bit and get a decent result'' You appear not to be asking that question but substituting 'easiest' for 'most difficult' which is almost bound to see you running into difficulties. Why make life more difficult than it already is? :lol: :lol: - Rob
User avatar
By deema
#1336727
I hadn’t noticed the wide groove in the handle! I think it’s a very clever idea, one I’ve not seen before. I agree that the rail and style joint probably needs making more robust. A full tenon, pegged (and glued) from the inside and not showing on the outside would I believe give it sufficient strength.
By Sgian Dubh
#1336733
MikeG. wrote:By gluing the opposite side to the stile, and allowing everything else just to float. Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve sitting the un-glued, un-pinned panel in a rebate and just hoping that it stayed there.

I don't see it quite that way, Mike. Both ends of the panel and one edge could be held in place with a centred tongue fitting a similarly centred groove in the the stile and both rails. The tongue of the panel's edge could be glued into the stile, and the ends left to float unglued. On the other edge of the panel, the full thickness of the panel can float in the groove that matches the panels thickness worked on the inside edge of the handle/stile. As I said earlier, I think this could work, in theory at least, and quite probably in reality. But there are other issues, e.g., the strength of the limited joinery (T&G) between the rails and stiles, that I would look harder at, particularly on the handle side, where there's more likely to be issues to ponder, e.g., grabbing the handle and opening the door, and perhaps other potential causes of joint failure.

However, the whole assembly as proposed is relatively complex requiring precision, and if anything doesn't quite work out it could be a bit of a dog's breakfast with gaps or overly tight joints, etc. As I said in my earlier post, my thoughts for such a desired finished appearance would move straight towards a simpler solution, i.e., something involving a veneered panel captured within a framework ... plus an applied handle or pull. Slainte.
By That would work
#1336735
woodbloke66 wrote:
That would work wrote:It's not unusual to have a panel set flush in a frame. Hence the bead and butt type methods.
I think the OP wanted to have a flush panel with no movement provision around the panel edge. (What you refer to as gaps?)
Not really possible with a solid panel.

What you're trying to do here is to go counter to centuries of perceived wisdom and good practice. A solid panel will move; indeed solid timber will move (as discussed yesterday in the thread about mitred corners on a 600mm wide solid wood top) alarmingly and you need to make allowances for that movement. If you want the panel to be entirely flush, with no 'gaps' where it meets the rails and stiles then the easiest and simplest way is to use veneered panels. The caveat of course, is that you need to know how to cut your own bandsawn veneers, join them and then lay them to produce the panel.
When I'm doing a project I usually always say to myself ...."what's the easiest way to do this bit and get a decent result'' You appear not to be asking that question but substituting 'easiest' for 'most difficult' which is almost bound to see you running into difficulties. Why make life more difficult than it already is? :lol: :lol: - Rob

I'm not sure if you are condradicting what I said or not? Bead and butt condradicts centuries of good practice? Really? It has developed over centuries!
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1336751
Sgian Dubh wrote:
MikeG. wrote:By gluing the opposite side to the stile, and allowing everything else just to float. Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve sitting the un-glued, un-pinned panel in a rebate and just hoping that it stayed there.

I don't see it quite that way, Mike. Both ends of the panel and one edge could be held in place with a centred tongue fitting a similarly centred groove in the the stile and both rails. The tongue of the panel's edge could be glued into the stile, and the ends left to float unglued. ........


We're saying precisely the same thing in different ways.
User avatar
By woodbloke66
#1336759
That would work wrote:[
I'm not sure if you are condradicting what I said or not?

Nope, not really but agreeing with you - Rob
By Sgian Dubh
#1336770
MikeG. wrote: We're saying precisely the same thing in different ways.

Now you point it out I see what you mean.

Sorry for misreading what you said. I think what threw me was where you said the "the panel pieces are rebated", as quoted below. For some reason I didn't catch on that you were probably saying to create a matching rebate at each edge on both faces of the panel, which would, of course, form a, err, uhm ... tongue, the term I used. Slainte.

MikeG. wrote: Unless all the panel pieces are rebated and the stiles & rails grooved, this couldn't possibly work, because it would involve
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1336772
Yep, that's what I meant. I knew what I meant, but communicated it in a way which meant I was the only one who had a clue what I was saying.... Apologies.

I wouldn't suggest rebating both sides of the panel. Just have the panel back finish flush with the back of the frame grooves. So actually not quite a tongue. A bare faced tongue, if you like.
User avatar
By Helvetica
#1336782
deema wrote:I hadn’t noticed the wide groove in the handle! I think it’s a very clever idea, one I’ve not seen before. I agree that the rail and style joint probably needs making more robust. A full tenon, pegged (and glued) from the inside and not showing on the outside would I believe give it sufficient strength.


That’s it! Thank you. It’s clearly hard to explain though! I will do exactly that. Each door is roughly 570x400mm and I have the frame at 70mm wide - would you suggest I go wider here? My thinking is, if it’s too wide then the frame verticals are prone to movement themselves.

This has turned into an interesting discussion, a lot to parse. Going to read properly now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk